Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL

PONTYPRIDD MARKETS FAIRS AND TOWN HALL BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

General Certificate of Secondary Education

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what additional resources are being made available to local education authorities specifically to reduce the size of classes taking the new general certificate of secondary education syllabus.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): It is for local education authorities to manage the resources available for education. Funding secondary schools for the GCSE is clearly a high priority, and I am pleased to see that some authorities have already made additional resources available for this purpose. So indeed has the Welsh Office, which has made available over £3 million for purposes specifically related to the introduction of the GCSE.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Minister aware that no teachers or headmasters, and only a very few parents, believe that we can introduce this syllabus, with classes of 30-plus for mainstream subjects, although that is what the majority of our children will face when the new system is introduced? Will he therefore look again at the pupil-teacher ratios for the introduction of the scheme, because they are vital to the success of the introduction of a new syllabus and examination system?

Mr. Roberts: I wholly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that teachers are showing the will and commitment that is needed to introduce the new examination. As for the pupil-teacher ratio, in the hon. Gentleman's own county, Mid Glamorgan, the pupil-teacher ratio is 16·7.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the parental concern, even cynicism. Is he satisfied that local councils will deploy these additional resources at the chalk face?

Mr. Roberts: I have already said that two local authorities have announced their plans, and I have exhorted local authorities to do so. There has been some concern about books and materials. The Government are making available this year £5,000, on average, per secondary school in Wales. A similar sum will be available over the next two years. That is in addition to the capitation allowances that are to be provided by the local authorities.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister aware that the extra £5,000 that is to be given to each secondary school is quite pathetic? The general certificate of secondary education is a new philosophy which will depend upon project work, more laboratory work and continual assessment. The resources that are being given to it are quite inadequate. When will the Government properly fund this particular examination?

Mr. Roberts: We are funding it properly. I have already announced what extra finance is available from the Welsh Office specifically for this examination. I remind the House that in Wales about £659·5 million is available to local authorities for education in the current year.

Mr. Raffan: Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider allocating further resources over the next three years to ensure that teachers can develop the new range of skills that are required to supervise and evaluate GCSE course work, bearing in mind that to release a teacher for one day costs a local education authority at least £50?

Mr. Roberts: In the amount that I have announced as being available from the Welsh Office, there is a grant scheme for in-service training, teacher training seminars and syllabus-specific training. We have sought to meet practically every reasonable requirement for additional finance for this examination.

Mr. Barry Jones: Would not the biggest boost for this important examination be more teachers? Is not the crucial mechanism for the funding of the school system the rate support grant? We demand a generous rate support grant settlement. Would not a means of helping education authorities in Wales be a switch of cash from private schools to the budgets of the local education authorities? Would that not give the new examination a better start, because the Minister is throwing more cash at the private schools than he is giving extra case to the new examination?

Mr. Roberts: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last remark. The amount given to private schools is over £1 million, but I have just added it up, and the total that we have given to the new examinaton is £3 million. That is additional to the support given through the rate support grant, which, under this Government, has increased from £601·8 million in 1979–80 to £628·5 million in 1984–85, at a time of falling pupil numbers. Therefore, expenditure per pupil has increased over that period by £100 in real terms.

Welsh Water Authority

Mr. Wigley: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of the Welsh water authority to discuss the authority's budget.

Mr. Ray Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to meet the chairman of the Welsh Water Authority to discuss with him the decision by the Government not to proceed with the plans to privatise the water industry in the next Session of Parliament.

The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Mark Robinson): My right hon. Friend and I meet the chairman of the Welsh water authority regularly to discuss a variety of issues. I last saw him on 15 July.

Mr. Wigley: As the Welsh water authority recently announced a record £12·3 million profit, is it not scandalous that water rates in Wales should be increased next year by 9 per cent., an average of £10 per household, at a time when the Government are increasing pensions by only 1 per cent.? Does that not put an unacceptable burden on the lowly paid in Wales?

Mr. Robinson: No final decisions have yet been taken on the charges that are likely to be levied by the Welsh water authority in the coming year. The £12·3 million profit has been used to finance an increase in the capital programme from £41 million in 1984–85 to £54 million in 1985–86.

Mr. Powell: We have no objection to the coupling of questions, but one expects the Minister to reply to the

second question. My question relates to the discussions with the chairman of the Welsh water authority about the Government's decision. On 9 June, only six weeks ago, the Minister was arguing for the privatisation of the water industry. Now the Government have changed their mind. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. If he reads Hansard for 9 June he will see what he said about privatisation. As the Government have changed their mind, one would have expected a Welsh Office Minister to make a statement to the House so that Labour Members in particular Welsh Members, could advocate what they wanted with regard to the water authorities, not what the Minister wants. In future, if the Minister is minded to couple my question with another, will he ensure that he answers it properly?

Mr. Robinson: In my reply I said that I met
the chairman of the Welsh water authority regularly to discuss a variety of issues.
These include the current status of water privatisation. As the hon. Members knows, having been in the Chamber for the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government have no plans to change their policy towards water privatisation. They have simply announced that we shall not be introducing legislation in the coming Session.

Mr. Raffan: I welcome the extra £30 million of capital expenditure by the Welsh water authority in 1984–85, but will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the chairman's foreword to his annual report, which says that it sets the authority on the road to even higher levels of capital spending over the next three years?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The chairman is very keen that capital investment by the Welsh water authority in the water industry should continue to go on apace. The chairman's report sums up the position well.

Mr. Alex Carlile: When the Minister last met the chairman to talk about the water authority's budget, did he discuss providing extra money to enable the Welsh water authority to monitor the caesium levels in sheep within its area? If not, will he give an assurance that Welsh Members will be given all the information necessary to enable them to judge the caesium levels in sheep in Wales? Furthermore, will he ensure that that includes all the statistical data in the Welsh Office's possession?

Mr. Robinson: That was not on the agenda at my meeting with the chairman of the Welsh water authority, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are publishing all the relevant information that is available on that topic.

Mr. Mark Hughes: I rise with great deference to intervene in Welsh Question Time, but why do the latest figures for England include the caesium level for brown trout, rainbow trout—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide of the question.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but—

Mr. Speaker: The trouble is, I cannot accept it.

Mr. Hughes: Why did the Minister not discuss the absence of any figures from the Welsh Office on the caesium levels in fish? It got figures on cabbage, rhubarb and gooseberries. Why not on fish?

Mr. Robinson: We are publishing all the statistics available to us.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: It may be premature to question my hon. Friend about the greater flexibility of capital raising after privatisation, but in the meanwhile can he confirm that he will issue firm advice to the Welsh water authority on the importance of ensuring that future rate increases are not significantly higher than the prevailing rate of inflation?

Mr. Robinson: I know that the water authority will do everything in its power to keep down rate increases to the lowest level possible.

Mr. Gareth Wardell: The Minister will be aware that more than 30,000 houses in Wales are served by unadopted sewers. Will he say when the Government will introduce measures to correct that, in line with their consultation paper, "Water and Sewerage Law"?

Mr. Robinson: As the hon. Gentleman has said, we have issued a consultation paper and we are now studying the responses that we have received.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is it not true that a privatised authority would not be a viable enterprise? Would not a commercialised water industry be disastrous for the country? Do not the Government's plans excite the hostility of tens of thousands of anglers in the Principality? There is no mandate in Wales for the privatisation of the water industry, and the party that proposes privatisation will be electorally wiped out.

Mr. Robinson: It is very likely that we shall be seeking a mandate for the privatisation of the water authorities. We certainly believe that the authorities have a great future as a privatised industry, as they will then be able to raise much-needed funding on the capital markets. There is every possibility that the Welsh water authority will be able to expand any recreational activities after privatisation.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; what were the equivalent figures in May 1979; and what has been the percentage increase in each case.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Nicholas Edwards): On 12 June 1986 the total numbers of unemployed claimants in the Newport travel-to-work area, Gwent and Wales, were 12,775, 29,229 and 173,708, respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a comparable basis.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Secretary of State recently looked at the population statistics for Newport? They show that the population is apparently declining in numbers. Moreover, there is evidence that it is the young who are leaving. Is that any wonder when, for a week or so, the local press has been full of reports of our young people frequenting amusement arcades, with all the debauchery that is associated with them? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that last Saturday I received a deputation of ladies, who presented me with a petition containing horrific details about glue sniffing in one area

of the town? After more than seven years in office, is it not time that the Government started to think about providing some real jobs for young people?

Mr. Edwards: I am glad to say that Gwent is one of the areas that has proved to be successful in attracting a wide range of new industries. The kind of approach adopted by the hon. Gentleman to these matters will hardly encourage investment of the kind that we all want.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the continued creation of new jobs is important, not the old dreary ritual of despair that we keep getting from the Opposition? Is not one of the best pointers the latest survey from the Cardiff chamber of commerce, published in this morning's Western Mail? That survey, carried out among its members throughout south Wales, shows that approximately two thirds expect to increase their business in the coming year. Does my right hon. Friend also agree that we ought not to ignore the fact that over 20 per cent. of them report difficulties in recruiting suitable labour, especially skilled tradesmen?

Mr. Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite right. There are other favourable indications, such as a very high level of factory allocations by Government agencies this year. Inquiries to the small business unit are at an all-time record high and there is continued success in attracting a high proportion of the United Kingdom's total inward investment.

Mr. Anderson: Does the Secretary of State tell the House that the welcome reduction in inflation is wholly due to the success of the Government's policy and that the alarming increase in unemployment is wholly due to external factors?

Mr. Edwards: I make no claims of the kind just put into my mouth. We are attracting a high level of investment in new jobs in Wales, and there are some signs that unemployment is stabilising and marginally improving relative to the situation elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That suggests that at least the long decline of the basic industries from which we have suffered for so long is coming to an end and that the Welsh economy is more arid more dependent on the large number of new companies that we attracted in recent years and on the large number of new small businesses that are starting up.

Kidney Patients

Mr. Favell: asked the Secretary of State for Wales how many new kidney patients per million head of population received dialysis treatment in 1979 and in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mr. Mark Robinson: In 1985 approximately 56 new patients per million population received dialysis treatment in Wales, compared with 19 new patients per million population in 1979.

Mr. Favell: I trust that Welsh Members will forgive me for venturing into health questions, but it is a subject in which I am interested. Can my hon. Friend tell me whether the wonderful improvement in kidney dialysis provision in Wales is due to a partnership between the private health sector and the National Health Service? Elsewhere in the United Kingdom, could not scarce resources as well as lives be saved by following the excellent example of Wales?

Mr. Robinson: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. This has been an outstandingly successful experiment in Carmarthen and in Bangor. In order to see what has been achieved in terms of co-operation between the public and private sectors in health care provision, I have written to my colleagues in the Scottish Office, the Northern Ireland Office and in England to inform them of what has been done and to urge them to look at it if they are so minded.

Mr. Coleman: I welcome the increase in the number of dialysis treatments in Wales, but can the Minister guarantee that this will continue, especially in the light of the Western Mail report this morning, which talks of shortages of doctors in Welsh hospitals? It says that authorities have to pay as much as £1,000 a week for locums and that young junior doctors have to work 104 hours a week. What will he do about that to ensure that the Health Service in Wales can continue successfully?

Mr. Robinson: Not only can I guarantee to the hon. Gentleman that the service will be maintained, but I can tell him that at the moment we are working on plans to extend the service.

A55-A548 Delyn (Link Road)

Mr. Raffan: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to construct a link road between the A55 and the A548 in Delyn; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I have no plans to do so.

Mr. Raffan: As Delyn borough council regards this as the most urgent priority road scheme in the borough, and as industrial growth will be hampered until the link is created, will my hon. Friend consider giving financial help to Clwyd county council to enable it to carry out its promised evaluation study of the proposed link road as soon as possible?

Mr. Roberts: As my hon. Friend will realise, the link road which he proposes, which is supported by Delyn borough council, is a matter for Clwyd county council. If and when the county council produces proposals, they will be considered in the usual way for support by means of the transport supplementary grant. I understand that Clwyd is prepared to carry out an evaluation study in due course, but that it gives higher priority to the second Dee crossing.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Apart from the A55, will there be a statement on Thursday about the building of a second Severn crossing? Have the Government rejected the report of the Select Committee on Transport on estuarial crossings, which calls for their abolition—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt a Front-Bench spokesman, but does this relate to the A55?

Mr. Hughes: It relates to the Government's road programme.

Mr. Speaker: The question relates to a link road between the A55 and the A548.

Mr. Hughes: Is it not time that the Government employed some plumbers to stop the perpetual leaks? At least they should start to show a little respect for the House of Commons.

Mr. Roberts: Whatever may be said about a second Severn crossing, it will not go over the A55 or the A548.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Does the Minister agree that the A55, with or without the link road, is only one part of the roads necessary for a reasonable east-west crossing in Wales? Will he give immediate consideration to giving greater priority to the mid-Wales east-west crossing?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have read "Roads in Wales 1985" and "Roads in Wales —the 1990s and Beyond." We are consulting on those proposals, which refer in part to mid-Wales.

European Regional Development Fund

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total value of grants which Wales has received from the European regional development fund in each of the past three years.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Net commitments in 1983, 1984 and 1985 amounted to £45·1 million, £63 million, and £54·9 million, respectively. Allocations to Wales in 1986 to date total £12·6 million, with applications for a further £37·2 million of aid under consideration in Brussels.

Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the size of the grants has been sufficiently well publicised? If not, what steps is he taking to ensure that the public are made aware of the extent of the assistance that Wales receives from the fund?

Mr. Edwards: The assistance has made a valuable contribution to the provision of infrastructure. The most recent example was the announcement by the Commission of financial support for the splendid new innovation centre on the campus of Swansea university, which was opened by the Prince of Wales a fortnight ago. Every opportunity is taken to publicise such support through press notices and by other means. When I was at the university last week the principal expressed his gratitude for the support and said how important it was.

Mr. Wigley: As one of the most important European grants for Gwynnedd — that to the lamb and sheep farmers—is being lost because of the radioactivity ban, thus causing an immense cash flow crisis for the farmers, when will the Secretary of State make a clear and detailed statement on compensation for those farmers? When will he come out of his bunker and come to Gwynnedd—he has not yet been there, although the crisis has continued for a month—and meet those farmers, who are facing a desperate time?

Mr. Edwards: I understand the importance of the questions being asked, which is why we are taking urgent steps to ensure that the areas are reduced as quickly as possible. But this does not arise under a question about the ERDF.

Transport Act 1985

Dr. Marek: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what is the latest assessment of the effect upon transport services in Wales of the operation of the Transport Act 1985.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: The evidence available so far suggests that the new arrangements will help to check the decline in the bus industry and encourage the provision of public transport services better suited to the needs of passengers.

Dr. Marek: Does the Minister appreciate that there is great anxiety about the problem in Wales and that there is great apprehension that evening stage carriage services and the problems of bussing children to and from school will become much worse as a result of the Transport Act? If he does not agree that that will happen, what guarantees can he give on those two points?

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman is being unduly alarmist. He must consider the whole picture, not just of registered commercial services, but of the subsidised services as well. He will know that no county in Wales has yet evaluated the tenders for subsidised services, but they all seem confident that they will be able to buy additional services through the subsidy tender system, and that includes Clwyd. I understand that Clwyd proposed to award contracts on the basis of competitive tenders, including those for school transport.

Housing (Multiple Occupation)

Mr. Anderson: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what guidance he will give to local authorities to protect the safety of those in houses of multiple occupation.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend has recently issued detailed guidance to local authorities on 22 May about their powers to control houses in multiple occupation and protect the safety of the people who live in them.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister must be aware from representations from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and those working in the field of their continued concern about the real dangers to the health and safety of that vulnerable section of our population who live in houses in mulitiple occupation. Will he at least undertake to look sympathetically at the Bill that has been introduced by Baroness Vickers in the other place, which would impose duties on local authorities to enforce certain standards for health and safety and would provide regular inspections by local authorities of houses in multiple occupation?

Mr. Robinson: We are aware of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Indeed, many of its provisions contain sympathetic and sensible ideas. However, our current legislation is adequate. Indeed, we have introduced some new legislation fairly recently and we want to see how that works before taking the matter further.

Welsh Water Authority

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what current steps are being taken by his Department to prepare the Welsh water authority for privatisation.

Mr. Mark Robinson: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment said in his statement to the House on 3 July, the Government intend to proceed with water privatisation as soon as practicable. Preparatory work to that end is continuing.

Mr. Davies: I take it from that answer that the Minister is confirming that staff in the Welsh Office are now carrying out preparatory work. Will he confirm that staff of the Welsh water authority are being directed to carry out preparatory work? Is not that expenditure of public

money and use of public servants' time fundamentally dishonest when neither the Welsh Office nor the Government have any mandate for their privatisation proposals? Will the Minister now take steps to direct staff in his Department to cease forthwith action on privatisation and direct the Welsh water authority to do the same? Will he confirm that the Government's privatisation proposals will form a centrepiece in the Government's manifesto at the next election?

Mr. Robinson: It is very likely that our privatisation proposals will form a central part of our manifesto. The hon. Gentleman has great first-hand experience of water as a result of his valiant attempt to push the Welsh Eight off the rocks during the regatta last week.
However, the answers to his other questions are no, Sir.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House something about the debt of the Welsh water authority? Are we to understand that if the industry is privatised the debt will be wiped out, but if it stays in public ownership the debt will remain?

Mr. Robinson: There will be a major restructuring to take account of privatisation, but until that time comes we have no plans to change the capital structure of the water authority.

School Visits

Mr. Barry Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales which schools in Wales he has visited from November 1985 to June 1986.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: My right hon. Friend has visited Pembroke comprehensive school; I have visited Cardiff high school, while my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Robinson), visited Malpas Church in Wales junior school in Newport.

Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State show more commitment to the local education authority schools in Wales? Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Social Security Bill may well eliminate some 27,000 free school meals in Wales, yet the community health experts and nutritionists are already worried about the low nutrition levels of many Welsh families? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many Welsh children depend for their nutrition upon free school meals? Bearing in mind nutritionists' worries, what will the Government do? Surely the Bill is wrong and will hit Welsh schoolchildren from the poorest families.

Mr. Roberts: The hon. Gentleman might be right in saying that a certain number of children will lose free school meals under the Social Security Bill, but an even greater number will benefit from the alternative scheme. We are totally committed to the maintained sector.

Mr. Grist: Is my hon. Friend aware that he will be a most welcome visitor to the Howardian high school in my constituency? That school is under threat of closure by the south Glamorgan authority, although it is one of the most successful in the county.

Mr. Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I know of his close connection with the Howardian high school. He will understand that there is scope for the rationalisation of secondary school provision, particularly


because of the fall in pupil numbers. Local education authorities make proposals that are the subject of consultation. A closure proposal is referred ultimately to

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mrs. Clwyd: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on hospital waiting lists in the Cynon Valley and Wales.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Representations on matters relating to waiting lists have been received from many parts of the Principality, including Cynon Valley. I indicated the extent of our response to the hon. Lady in replying to her question on 30 June.

Mrs. Clwyd: Is the Minister aware that there are far fewer general surgeons in post than when the Government came to power in 1979, and that there are now fewer consultant surgeons per head of population in Britain than in any other Western country? Does that not nail the lie perpetuated by the Government that they have put more into the National Health Service? Does the Minister agree with the president of the Royal College of Surgeons, who said recently:
Wards are being closed, beds are being closed, surgeons are being told to reduce their operating sessions. Many of us, including myself, have been criticised for doing too much work. That is unbelievable. The prime reason is finance.

Mr. Robinson: I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State opened no fewer than two new hospitals on Friday. Staff directly concerned with front-line patient care, including the categories to which the hon. Lady referred, have increased by 12·5 per cent. since 1979, nursing staff are up by 10 per cent., medical and dental staff are up by 13 per cent.—an overall increase of 18 per cent. I am astonished that the hon. Lady should refer to falling resources, because expenditure that we have made available to the Health Service since we came to power has increased by no less than 26 per cent. in real terms.

Welsh Joint Education Committee

Mr. Gwilym Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he has any plans to meet the Welsh Joint Education Committee.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: I attended the annual meeting of the Welsh Joint Education Committee on 4 July 1986 and set out Government policy over a range of educational issues of current concern in Wales. I have placed a copy of my speech in the Library.

Mr. Jones: Did my hon. Friend take the opportunity to raise the important TVEI programme with the WJEC?

Mr. Roberts: I touched upon the subject and was delighted to tell the WJEC of my pride over the fact that every local education authority in Wales is involved in TVEI. We have announced an extension of the TVEI scheme and have published the White Paper "Working Together — Education and Training" which relates to TVEI.

Mr. Wigley: At the meeting to which the Minister referred, Councillor Emyr Currie-Jones asked him why the suggested plan for the Welsh language, given to the Welsh Office by the Welsh Joint Education Committee in November, had received no response. Why has the Welsh Office been sitting on that plan for seven months?

Mr. Roberts: The WJEC has certainly put forward proposals on that matter. However, they involve a somewhat complex machinery of committees and subcommittees and a complex programme of work. What the WJEC has not done is to meet the requirements spelt out by my right hon. Friend in his letter to it of 23 July last year.

Mr. Barry Jones: The Minister is being unnecessarily laggardly about this matter. Was it not a major error of judgment to attack the WJEC while failing to indicate the financial resources available to it? There is a bitter taste in the mouths of people in Wales because of the Minister's mistake. Should he not apologise to the WJEC?

Mr. Roberts: My intention was to spur on the WJEC, and I think that what I said achieved the desired effect. After all, it is a year since my right hon. Friend wrote to it, and I have openly regretted the fact that we have not been able to make more progress together in such a long time.
I think that the spur that I gave to the WJEC has been successful and that we shall advance more quickly in the near future. One reason why we have not advanced as quickly as we might has been the stress that the WJEC has placed on resources, whereas I have been stressing the need for a proper framework for discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Church Halls

Sir John Biggs-Davison: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what criteria the Commissioners use in the provision of funds for church halls.

Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The Church Commissioners do not provide funds specifically for church halls. However, they do make grants to dioceses for the provision of church buildings in new housing areas, and that could include church halls.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Do the Church Commissioners share my concern at the number of unsightly annexes to churches? Do they think that the Church should remain free from planning control? Does my hon. Friend recall that in France and Italy clerical iconoclasts have been restrained by municipal authorities?

Sir William van Straubenzee: If that were the position, it would be a matter for anxiety. However, I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend completely by telling him that all church buildings are subject to normal planning control. I think that he has in mind exemption from listing building control. If a particular case offends his susceptibilities—and he may be right, I do not know—he has to blame those who gave the planning consent, not the Church authorities.

Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that too many parish churches confine the use of their church halls to their congregations? Would it not be far better if parish churches were prepared to provide, for example, meals for the elderly and social activities for the elderly and for under-privileged children? After all, many committed Christians would be only too pleased to undertake such excellent work if their vicar were to give a lead.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am afraid that I must avoid taking any responsibility for the work of individual parishes. I mean no discourtesy to my hon. Friend, and if he has a specific case in mind I shall willingly pass it on to the diocesan bishop concerned.

Buildings (Expenditure)

Mr. Chapman: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the current level of Church Commissioners' expenditure on Church buildings.

Sir Wiliam van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners' expenditure on church buildings during the year ending 31 December 1985 totalled £3·3 million.

Mr. Chapman: As the Church raises about £55 million —whether through the Church Commissioners or parish fund-raising—to conserve and preserve its architectural heritage, and as the Church has a 3:1 better record in preserving its heritage than owners of secular buildings, does my hon. Friend agree that that is a matter of commendation and that it would be foolish to seek to change the laws related to listed buildings consent by getting rid of the ecclesiastical exemption? We should leave things exactly as they are.

Sir William van Straubenzee: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. As he knows, the matter is under the scrutiny of the Select Committee on the Environment. It will be interesting to see what the Committee contributes. In the meanwhile, I am able to confirm that congregations provide £55 million each year for the upkeep and maintenance of their buildings, compared to about £4 million received in the form of state aid.

Parsonage Homes

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, how many clergy occupy parsonage homes maintained partly or wholly with funds provided by the Church Commissioners; if any scheme exists to assist clergy to purchase their homes; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee: There were 8,223 in 1985. The Church of England pensions board also operates a scheme to assist clergymen to purchase a home on retirement and the commissioners contribute financially to it.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I recognise that the Church of England, through the commissioners, is generous in its provision of clergy housing. I understand that £8·8 million was provided in 1985, which was 7p in each pound. Does my hon. Friend agree that many clergy would like the flexibility of movement that would come from owning their own homes? Could not some help be given to them to allow them to buy their own homes, recognising that at present they have to live on the job and are contacted regularly at home day in and day out? They do a magnificent job, but they could do with some flexibility.

Sir William van Straubenzee: This issue was last considered as recently as 1982, before my hon. Friend joined the General Synod. A paper was circulated at that time. It was clear that the ownership of houses by the serving clergy would have a serious effect on deployment,

and there was little desire among the clergy for such a change. The emphasis is put upon making it infinitely easier than it ever was before to purchase a house, or to be provided with retirement housing, once active service has come to an end.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ethnic Monitoring

Mr. Janner: asked the hon. Member for Berwick upon Tweed, as representing the House of Commons Commission, what information he has as to the monitoring of the sex and ethnic origin of staff at the Palace of Westminster and applicants for employment at the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. A. J. Beith (A House of Commons Commissioner): The House of Commons is an equal opportunity employer and, following arrangements agreed for the Civil Service, a programme for monitoring the ethnic origins of staff of the House is to be conducted in the near future. The details of this programme are subject to discussion between management and trade union representatives. There is currently no monitoring of the sex of staff of the House or of applicants for employment.

Mr. Janner: Can the hon. Gentleman say why the House of Commons, of all places, has not yet complied with the codes of the Commission for Racial Equality and the Equal Opportunities Commission? Surely it should be for the House to set an example to others and not to drag behind in what is an important area of equal opportunities, in which it is not good enough merely to say that the House is an equal opportunities employer and then to continue to operate what appears to me from casual observation to be a sexist and racist organisation in which employees do not reach the top unless they are from the majority?

Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Commission is making every effort to implement the code of practice. Indeed, it is statutorily bound to follow the Civil Service in doing so. The timetable by which it is carrying out the proposals is based upon adhering to that statutory obligation and consulting the trade union representatives within the House. I know of no basis for the hon. and learned Gentleman's wild charge that the House is either racist or sexist in the way in which it carries out its employment responsibilities.

Mr. Stokes: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for jobs in the Palace of Westminster the only criteria should be suitability for the post and loyalty to this country?

Mr. Beith: Perhaps I should remind the hon. Gentleman that the Commission is responsible only for its employees and not for the entire staff in the Palace of Westminster. A number of separate organisations employ staff here. The features to which the hon. Gentleman has referred are, of course, part of our employment policy. We have a duty to ensure that there is no discrimination on the grounds of race or sex in employment within the House.

Mrs. Shields: As there is a House of Commons barber, does the Commission have any plans for establishing a ladies' hairdresser?

Mr. Beith: I am delighted that, from the Liberal Bench, we may have increased the demand for ladies' hairdressing


facilities within the House. However, I must tell my hon. Friend that the matter is one for the Services Committee. Were she to address her question to the Leader of the House, I am sure that he could give her an account of the lengthy discussions that have taken place on this subject.

Mr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many hon. Members think that the question on the Order Paper appears thoroughly racist and sexist, and that we should have nothing to do with discrimination, one way or the other?

Mr. Beith: The House of Commons Commission is carrying out its proper duties to ensure that there is no discrimination in employment. It is also seeking to ensure, by the monitoring process that has been agreed for the Civil Service generally, that it has full knowledge of whether people of particular ethnic groups and the two sexes have appropriate opportunities for promotion within the service of the House.

Parliaments (Morning Sittings)

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: asked the Lord Privy Seal what information he has as to which Parliaments in the EEC have morning sittings; and if he will make a statement.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I understand that the following EC countries have arrangements for morning parliamentary sittings, either on a regular or an occasional basis: Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy and Spain.

Mr. Bruinvels: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Recognising that I am not the greatest supporter of the European Assembly, may I suggest that our House should consider sitting, at least occasionally, in the morning, in addition to the regular Friday morning sittings. It costs far too much to run the House of Commons. We are sitting far too late into the night, although, happily, not as much as in the past.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend's observation overlooks the fact that many hon. Members recall the period when the House sat in the morning on an experimental basis. That experiment has never led to an informed demand for its renewal.

Mr. Dalyell: Does the Leader of the House recollect that one of the problems with the late Dick Crossman's ill-starred attempts to bring in morning sittings lay with the Law Officers? Is there not a general problem with the accountability of the Law Officers? Should there not be an opportunity for the Attorney-General to explain why he gave immunity to Miss Colette Bowe, when on 30 January he told us that he was first informed of the involvement of the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) on 22 January?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is ingenious but wide of the original question.

Mr. Biffen: I stayed here till the closing minutes on Friday to hear the hon. Gentleman. I now realise with what sadness I missed his contribution. I am glad to take note of it now. It would be quite inappropriate for me to follow the hon. Gentleman in that question, except to say that he seems to have had much more difficulty than the late Dick Crossman did with the Law Officers.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties that the House would face with morning sittings is that Governments do not always have a large majority and that, if a Government's majority were much smaller, Government Members would be required to start all the House's Committees? In addition, Scottish Members would be required to start all the Scottish Committees and the Scottish Grand Committee. Therefore, most of the time, they would be excluded from attending the morning sittings.

Mr. Biffen: My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When the Crossman experiment took place, it was recognised that because Ministers would often be doing work within the Ministry, no votes could take place during morning sittings. Therefore, they were all left over to the evening, when some quite esoteric subjects suddenly found that they had the most extraordinary turn-out because of their proximity to a three-line Whip. I refer to the future of the Oswestry market, which was under consideration. [Interruption.] That happens to be true, and it is for any historian to judge. Once the practices of this House are disturbed, we cannot suppose that automatically we have an improved position as a consequence.

Mr. Williams: Does the Leader of the House not find it more than slightly surprising that the request for morning sittings has come from, of all people, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Brunivels), who, after all, was eager to bounce to his feet claiming the discredit for having sank the morning sitting that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) should have had on a Friday?

Mr. Biffen: I would find it surprising if the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) had not torpedoed himself last Friday.

Mr. Wallace: Many hon. Members feel that there is insufficient time for debating private Member's motions and Bills. Will the Leader of the House consider having an experiment, even one morning a week, and if hon. Members did not turn up to debate their own material, the experiment could be abandoned?

Mr. Biffen: The House should be careful before engaging the whole bureaucracy of morning sittings to meet such a narrow point as that suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

Line of Route

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Privy if he will review the policy of curtailing the normal line of route for a week on the occasions when Her Majesty's Government invite foreign dignitaries to speak in the Royal Gallery; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: No, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: As this is the people's Parliament, and not the Government's Parliament, does my right hon. Friend not think that it is unfair, unreasonable and unkind that groups of schoolchildren and pensioners who have saved up for a long time to come to Parliament for pre-arranged visits should have their tours disrupted because of one of these occasions? Cannot such meetings be held in a Committee room? As the last three visits have been by representatives of Spain, France and Italy, and none have


been by representatives of the Commonwealth, will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly who selects the people who come to these privileged occasions?

Mr. Biffen: That is a touching reference by my hon. Friend to the Commonwealth. Doubtless he will elaborate at some time on who he thinks would be suitable to make an address in the Royal Gallery. The Heads of State who are invited here for this accolade are relatively few. There have been about 10 during the past 20-odd years. The Government, of course, give the invitation, but they do so knowing that they speak for the British people at large. It would be a poor day if that proper degree of pomp and ceremony, which should be associated with Government were relegated because of schoolchildren's parties.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman is missing the important point. Many hon. Members have experienced this problem showing parties around this year. It must be borne in mind that these groups of pensioners, schoolchildren and so on are coming on a once in a lifetime visit arranged months in advance and, in many cases, at considerable expense. They deserve some consideration. Because it seems that the only rooms that need to be closed are the Royal Robing Room the Royal Gallery and the Prince's Chamber, it is inconceivable that we cannot arrange these visits so as not to close the line of route for a full week in advance.

Mr. Biffen: That point is, of course, frequently considered by those who are responsible for looking after such visits [Interruption.] There are various serious responsibilities concerning security—a problem that has been compounded in recent years. I know that it is inconvenient that we must close down the line of route for about a week, but I do not belive that that period would reasonably be shortened without giving rise to other hazards, which I do not believe the House would wish to undertake.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Stipends

Mr. Greenway: asked the hon. Member for Wokingham, as representing the Church Commissioners, what was the total amount paid out by the Church Commissioners in 1985 for the stipends of bishops and clergy; what information he has as to the amount contributed by church congregations for this purpose; how these figures compared in real terms with those for 1975; and if he will make a statement.

Sir William van Straubenzee (The Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing Church Commissioners): The total was £76·3 million in 1985. This included £33·9 million from church congregations. The figures for 1975— when payment arrangements were

different — were £21·3 million and £1·4 million respectively. That is an increase in real terms of 30 per cent. and 769 per cent.

Mr. Greenway: Are not those figures impressive? Will my hon. Friend give the comparative size of the congregations who contributed the sums mentioned in 1975? What was the average size of the congregation per ordained clergyman then compared with now? Does he think that the congregations get value for money?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners do not keep statistics of the type requested, because they are not responsible for those matters. I was able to give only the broad figures for which my hon. Friend asked, and I am grateful to him, because they show two things. First, the gross figures are substantial. Secondly, the fact that contributions from church congregations have increased by 769 per cent. in that comparatively short period shows the enormous increase in voluntary giving that is willingly undertaken.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Do bishops get a secretarial allowance?

Sir William van Straubenzee: The Church Commissioners pay the salaries of secretarial help for bishops.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Foreign Languages (O-Level Results)

Mr. Grist: asked the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of 16-year-old school pupils in Wales achieve grades A to C at 0-level in foreign languages.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): An answer cannot be given in the precise terms requested. In 1985 there were 13,566 6-year old pupils in Welsh schools. In the same year there were 4,141 passes at grades A to C in foreign languages. However, some pupils taking or re-taking 0-levels were over 16, and some sat more than one foreign language examination.

Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the overall figures for Wales, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, are deeply disturbing and quite extraordinarily poor in a European context? What will his Department do to try to persuade young people of the value of foreign languages in economic as well as in cultural terms?

Mr. Roberts: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friends have published a draft statement of policy on foreign languages in the school curriculum. I agree that there is plenty of scope for further teaching and learning of foreign languages. There is spare teaching capacity in foreign languages and new opportunities are presented by the advanced secondary courses. Further, many sixth forms undertaking foreign languages are comparatively empty.

Single Payments

The Minister for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about single payments of supplementary benefit.
I first simply set some facts before the House. Between 1974 and 1979, under the previous Government, what were then called exceptional needs payments rose from 0·8 million to 1·1 million, and their cost from £11·5 million to £38 million. These numbers were already a matter of concern, and one of the objectives of the review carried out from 1976 to 1978 was better control of such payments.
In 1980 the present Government made changes which it was hoped would overcome the problem, and which indeed took account of the recommendations of that earlier review. Initially they appeared to have had some success, but by 1983 the number of payments was virtually double the 1979 figure, at nearly 2 million, and expenditure had almost quadrupled, to over £140 million. By 1985 both figures had more than doubled again—to more than 4 million payments at a cost of over £300 million—and the growth shows no sign of diminishing.
This trend cannot be explained by the increase in the number of claimants. The rate of payments per claimant has itself more than doubled since 1979. Nor can it be explained by changes in weekly benefit levels. The weekly scale rates rose in real terms by some 6 per cent. between November 1978 and November 1985. There have also been other significant improvements — for example, in some of the payments for children; in the amount and scope of regular additional heating payments, especially for pensioners; and in the rules concerning benefit for the long-term sick and disabled.
Against that background, our firm conclusion in the recent social security review was that the present system of single payments could be neither justified nor sustained. It is incompatible with sensible planning and efficient administration, as is shown by the fact that, although only some 5 per cent. of supplementary benefit expenditure goes into single payments, it accounts for nearly 50 per cent. of all supplementary benefit decisions and over 50 per cent. of appeal hearings.
More fundamentally, it is clearly not achieving what Parliament intended. Despite elaborate regulations and adjudication, wide discrepancies occur from one area to another. It is increasingly perceived as unfair by others on incomes little or no higher than supplementary benefit, to whom no comparable help is available. There is unacceptable scope for exploitation and abuse, yet at the same time insufficient flexibility to meet the real needs of genuine claimants.
As the House knows, it is for these reasons that the Government have brought forward in the current Social Security Bill proposals for an improved structure of regular weekly income support, coupled with a clearly distinct social fund designed to give appropriate help with genuine special occasional needs in a more practical, manageable and flexible way. We believe those proposals are essential to the proper working of the benefit system as a whole.
Meanwhile, however, the growing unworkability of the present single payments system could not simply be ignored. In February, therefore, we put for consultation

to the Social Security Advisory Committee draft regulations making a number of changes within the existing structure, as an interim measure. The principal elements were to restrict furniture and bedding payments to more clearly defined categories of need; paying particular attention to the needs of pensioners, the sick and disabled, and those leaving hospital after a long stay; to introduce time rules for repeat claims for items of furniture; to set standard sums for specific items such as cookers, and standard amounts to cover a range of miscellaneous household items which can at present be individually listed; and to introduce a standard pattern of help with maternity needs.
We have now given very careful consideration to the committee's report, which is laid before Parliament today, together with my right hon. Friend's response. The report clearly recognises the difficulties to which the Government are seeking to respond. It also recognises the effort that has been made to take account of the needs of those thought to be most vulnerable, and welcomes in principle the introduction of standard payments and lump sums. While making it plain that the committee does not endorse the proposals as a whole, it nevertheless suggests a number of specific modifications which it would wish to see if the Government should decide to proceed.
For the reasons that I have given, the Government continue to believe that action is needed. Moreover, those considerations have been greatly strengthened by the continued escalation of single payments in recent months. The most recent figures, for the four weeks to 3 June, were equivalent to an annual rate of 5½ million payments and at least £400 million. Many local authorities and other bodies are mounting campaigns to stimulate further claims, for example by circulating leaflets containing extensive "tick lists" of items under some such slogan as "Closing Down Sale". Apart from anything else, the consequent growing burden on DHSS offices, despite the additional staff that we are making available, is seriously detrimental to the interests of claimants themselves.
The Government therefore propose to proceed with new regulations, but with a number of important modifications to meet detailed suggestions which the Committee has made. These include further steps to protect the position of refugees, women who have been subject to domestic violence, and young people leaving local authority care; a lengthening of the qualifying period for maternity payments; the extension of lump sum payments for miscellaneous items to childless claimants setting up home; and, perhaps most important, a doubling of that lump sum from £25 to £50 for each dependant. Regulations incorporating those changes have been laid today, with a view to bringing them into effect on 11 August.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Does it not indicate the extreme and justified embarrassment of the Government that they have for weeks put off laying this measure—one of the harshest in all their years in office—until after the Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election, and that they are now trying to rush it through in the last weeks before the recess? Indeed, I understand that they are proposing to table it for debate on Wednesday—the day of the royal wedding—in order, they hope, to minimise public awareness. Is it not characteristic of the Government that they have chosen a day of national festivities to hammer the poor with extra rates payments


of £300 million, and now cuts in single payments, which, on the figures that the Minister gave today, amount to no less than £180 million?
Will the Minister acknowledge that supplementary benefit levels are insufficient to pay for—and were never intended to pay for major items such as furniture, bedding, blankets, cookers, fridges and clothes, and that the effect of these regulations must therefore be to push many families more deeply into poverty?
Does the Minister accept that cutting back expenditure on single payments to the 1984 level, as the Government intend, is wholly arbitrary and it fails to take account of the causes of the growth in demand for single payments, namely, the rise in unemployment, the growing number of long-term claimants, who inevitably have higher needs, and the steady erosion of claimants' other resources, such as savings or spouse's earnings?
Will the Minister acknowledge that the Government's SSAC said:
The representations we received suggest that while some of this growth may be attributable to increasing awareness among claimants of their legal rights it may equally be accounted for by the existence of a reservoir of unmet need which is only now being recognised. The Government's response has been to propose much tighter conditions of eligibility and a greatly limited range of items. This response, because it seeks to attack the symptoms (increased public expenditure) without fully analysing the causes, must necessarily run the risk of causing widespread hardship amongst claimants who are already living at what is generally recognised as the poverty level."?
Those are the committee's words.
Will the Minister acknowledge that his criticism today of local authority take-up campaigns implies a lack of concern about the real problem of under-claiming that exists and shows that in the Government's view a high level of unmet need is acceptable? Will he confirm that the SSAC opposes these plans to reduce help for buying furniture, for meeting the costs of newly born babies and for making urgent payments to people in need? Will he confirm that the definition of chronically sick and physically, or mentally, disabled is being made much more restrictive in order to limit claims? Will the Minister confirm that the Government's revised list for help with furniture now omits tables, chairs, cupboards, floor coverings and carpets? Will he acknowledge that financing the repair or replacement of those items without assistance or recompense will chiefly hit lone-parents and unemployed people? Is he aware that scrapping regulation 28, by which back payments can be made where benefit has been underpaid, will have damaging effects, as will withdrawing protection from pensioners and many other vulnerable claimants during extremely cold weather?
Is the Minister aware that the modifications to the original draft regulations which he has made today, in the face of deep hostility from the SSAC are minuscule and cosmetic? Is he aware that these regulations will cause intense and widespread hardship? Is he aware that this is the latest and, perhaps, the harshest measure to be brought in by the Government, taking the country back to a restrictive and inadequately financed system of poor law support, which we in the Labour party unequivocally reject?

Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) to know that I accept little of what he said. We have made it clear that we expect about £100 million to be saved in a full year compared with

the expenditure in 1985–86. However, it is difficult to make firm estimates in this area at present precisely because of the rapid escalation in expenditure that is going on.
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestions about the creation of intense and widespread hardship. As the Social Security Advisory Committee acknowledged — I did not attempt to disguise the fact that it does not endorse the proposals as a whole — a deliberate and careful attempt has been made to protect those whom we see to be priority claimants and cases, to ensure that they continue to receive help.
Let me give the House one example to set against what the hon. Gentleman said. A lone-parent, with two children, setting up home after a marriage breakdown will still be able to get help of about £800 to assist in that connection. That is not unreasonable. It is a sensible provision for those most in need.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Government gave it all away to the rich last Thursday, on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) must not interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Government do not care.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Newton: In view of the glowing terms in which the hon. Member for Oldham, West referred to the take-up campaigns of local authorities, I should tell the House that I have in my hand the "tick list" that was submitted by a claimant in the Strathclyde region. [interruption.] If the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will listen for a moment, he may—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Workington cannot contain himself, I shall have to ask him to leave, and I should not want to do that.

Mr. Newton: I have in my hand the "tick list" that was submitted by a claimant in the Strathclyde region, listing literally dozens of items for which she was making a claim, starting with four single beds, bedding for the whole family, three fires, three fire guards and four hot-water bottles. Also, I have the letter that that claimant wrote to the local DHSS office a few days later, which said that her social worker had been to visit her and told her that she could claim, had filled in the form, posted it and had given her a copy. The claimant wrote:
Most of the things I don't need, so I am writing to let you know the items I do need, and could you ignore the letters he has sent?

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Does my hon. Friend not regard the multi-purpose forms to which he referred in his opening statement, which is similar to the one issued by the North British Housing Association, which begins
Dear Manager, Pay me a grant for these things",
as a total abuse of the purpose of the single payment? Is it not a fact that this kind of leaflet and this kind of approach clog up the whole system of both the normal payment and the appeals procedure, to the detriment of the very people whom the system was designed to help? In the light of what has been happening during the last 12 months, is there not an unanswerable case for the new system that my hon. Friend is proposing?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. I have some examples here, including the one that the Oldham social services department is circulating under the heading:
Claim it while you can.
One local office in Sheffield, serving 21,000 claimants, recently received 4,000 claims for bedding within a few weeks and 2,500 claims for furniture within four days. What is happening is clogging up the system, is detrimental to the interests of claimants themselves and needs to be checked.

Mr. David Alton: Does not this latest attempt to shift the benefit goal posts augur badly for the new family credit system, which will no doubt be abolished if too many claimants take it up? Does the Minister not agree that this is just grinding the poor further into the ground? How will the poor contrast this decision to save £100 million with the decision to give away £1·5 billion in tax cuts? How will the poor contrast this decision to try to pick up a few petty offences with the Government's failure to do anything about racketeers and profiteers who are abusing hundreds of millions of pounds of housing benefit?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that family credit has nothing whatever to do with this, except in one sense, namely, that the object of family credit is to do more to help low-paid families in work and to create a fairer system between those in low-paid employment and those on benefit. That is part of our purpose with these proposals.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my hon. Friend aware that the state of affairs that he has described cannot be allowed to continue and that his proposals will be warmly welcomed on this side of the House? Does he not think that the abuse of the single payments system, as deomonstrated by the campaigns in the benefit shops that have been set up all over the country, illustrates the logic and the fairness of incorporating these resources into the proposed income support scheme? Would that not ensure that what is, after all, taxpayers' money goes to the people who are really in need and not to those who simply know how to manipulate the system?

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with every word that he has said.

Mr. Max Madden: How does the Minister have the brass neck to come to the House and make this statement, thereby saving £100 million, which will rob the poor of money that they desperately need for items with which to exist, and blame the poor for claiming what is theirs by right? How many Treasury Ministers have attacked sleazy accountants for running seminars to advise people on how to save considerable sums of money through tax avoidance schemes? How many Ministers have blamed the rich for exerting their rights and claiming their rights by every legitimate means? Why does the hon. Gentleman come to the House to attack those who are properly advising the poor on their rights and how to claim them? Is it not a disgrace to come to the House with this statement which is robbing the poor of £100 million, when the Government have given millions upon millions to the richest people, who do not deserve it and do not need it?

Mr. Newton: I am saying no more than that the system is manifestly lending itself to manipulation and

exploitation on a scale beyond what Parliament ever intended, and that is not in the interests of claimants and is leading to delays in the proper processing of genuinely urgent applications. I do not believe that any Government would continue to live with this situation.

Mr. Tony Favell: Will my hon. Friend remind the Labour party that single payments do not drop off trees, and that the recipients rely on their neighbours to provide them?

Mr. Newton: I agree with my hon. Friend. One of the problems here is the perceived unfairness by those who cannot obtain these payments so readily. It is right to try to restore the balance between different groups in their claims on the taxpayer.

Mr. Kevin Barron: I represent an area where an increasing number of people are living on supplementary benefit, and where there has been a consistent rise in unemployment and all to do with it. Why are the Government not merely taking this £100 million from the poor people who need it, but not allowing an appeals procedure for the social fund so that an appeal can be made against any decisions taken?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman's question does not arise from the statement but will be the subject of debate in the House later this week.

Mr. Tim Smith: For all this synthetic excitement from the Labour Benches, is it not clear from the figures that my hon. Friend gave, showing that the number of claims has doubled in two years, that the taxpayer is being ripped off by this gross abuse of the system? What checks are carried out before claims are made, and afterwards to see that the money is properly spent?

Mr. Newton: Our staff attempt to carry out proper checks, but not the least of the difficulties with the growing exploitation of the system and the burden that it is placing on officers is that it becomes increasingly difficult to administer the system properly. We are not prepared to tolerate that.

Mr. James Lamond: The Minister said that he had a circular from the social services department at Oldham, which has—correctlybeen circulated to clients and those making claims for assistance. Why has the hon. Gentleman been so illogical as to claim that the system is clogged up—as it is, in Oldham—but not to deal with it properly by ensuring that there are sufficient staff to deal with the problem? Has not the lack of staff been pointed out time and again by the unions representing staff working in social service departments? Why has the hon. Gentleman sought instead to clear up the backlog by choking off those who are correctly asking for single payments, while, happily for him, by coincidence, reducing costs to the Government by taking £100 million from the poorest people?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we are in the process of putting a substantial number of additional staff into the social security system—some 5,000 in all — compared with what had been planned, because of the pressures on that system. I say to the House in all seriousness, because I believe that, in the end, it would be the view that Ministers in another Government


would have had to take, that no system can sensibly cope with this kind of payment rising at the rate of 1 million payments a year.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in making these regrettable but necessary changes, he has followed the advice of the SSAC on many of the most salient points? Furthermore, if these changes are made in advance of the full implementation of the social fund, what will be the bridging arrangements between now and then?

Mr. Newton: As I made clear in the statement, the measures are seen as a means of ensuring the continued workability of the existing single payments system, pending the introduction of the social fund. That is a sensible approach, and it underlines the Government's proposals.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Does the Minister accept that most applicants for such payments come from the areas of greatest deprivation, which have the highest numbers of long-term unemployed people? Does he not realise that they require certain items to furnish their houses? Does the hon. Gentleman not have any constituency experience of people coming to him for help? Would it not be better to deal with what is clogging up the system instead of abolishing it altogether?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman would be wrong to think that there is a clear correlation between deprivation and the number of applicants. One of the least satisfactory aspects of the system is the extraordinary variation to be found between areas when measured in payments per claimant. The rate of single payments per thousand claimants varies from 481 in one region to 1,540 in another. In Scotland, which will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman, the number of claimants per 100 unemployed varies from 38 in some offices to 291 elsewhere. Such variations must call into question the fairness of the present system and whether it is being operated sensibly.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does my hon. Friend agree that an eightfold increase in the value of the payments between 1979 and today is wholly unacceptable? Does he further agree that, as a general rule, such payments should be used for unforeseeable and exceptional needs, and that there is considerable evidence that claims are being made that do not fall within the general purpose of the regulations?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason why I am concerned that the interests of those claimants with genuine, unforeseeable, one-off needs are in danger of being swamped by some of the things that are happening throughout the country.

Mr. Hugh Brown: Many of us appreciate the fact that the regulations are to be debated on Wednesday, the day of the royal wedding. That must have been thought up by the Government's dirty tricks department, but may I ask a constructive question? I accept that there are abuses. The Minister referred to Strathclyde, and I should not be surprised if the letter referred to the office covering my constituency. Some of us recognise that there is a problem, but would it not be better to hold constructive talks with local authority representatives, with a view to looking at the take-up

campaigns, which are legitimate, and at the abuses? One difficulty is that regional directors do not have the political know-how to deal with such situations.

Mr. Newton: We try to talk constructively to local authorities when they are considering take-up campaigns, to ensure that they are conducted responsibly and in a well targeted way, but that does not work with all local authorities, and some are easier to talk to than others.

Mr. Michael Hirst: Does my hon. Friend agree that voluntary insulation groups have done a good job in insulating annually about 500,000 homes of the most disadvantaged members of society, often with help from a single payment? In view of his statement, can he offer any reassurance about the future of voluntary insulation groups?

Mr. Newton: The regulations that have been laid today do not affect single payments for draught-proofing. I have made it clear several times that we would not wish to make changes in that respect without being assured that there were adequate alternative arrangements to ensure the continuation and, indeed, development of those very valuable groups. We are discussing that with the other Departments involved.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Instead of attacking local authorities and claimants' organisations which legitimately seek money from the DHSS, why does the Minster not improve the advice services of the DHSS? Is it not an abuse to say that those who are eligible to claim money, and legitimately do so, will henceforth be prevented from doing so for single payments? Will the Minister tell us when he last went through the indignity of trying to get a single payment to buy a secondhand cooker or an old bed or clothing or furniture? Has he been through that indignity? It is a disgrace that this week, when millions will be spent on the royal wedding, the Minister should come here to make the poor pay for the tax cuts and for the wedding that we are about to see.

Mr. Newton: We have significantly improved the DHSS advice services, and we attach great importance to that. Everyone recognises the value of the DHSS Freephone service, which is now operating throughout the country. One of the things welcomed by the Social Security Advisory Committee is the proposed introduction of standard lump sums for such items as cookers. That will improve the position of claimants.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Bearing in mind that this is an Opposition day, I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes, and then we must move on.

Mr. Michael Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most welcome aspects of these regulations is the standardisation of payments? I hope he will agree that that will deal with a number of the racketeers who batten on to people who receive single payments. The effect of the regulations could be that more money will reach the people who need it.

Mr. Newton: I certainly agree. I think the Social Security Advisory Committee has recognised that our proposals are a real gain and will help to avoid some of the problems to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the Minister recall that earlier this year, in the Select Committee on Social Services, he warned us when we were pressing for more money to help disabled people and to provide care for old people that that could be achieved only at the expense of other items? In view of the Government's climb down on invalid care allowance and the passing of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, are these regulations being rushed through so that the poor will have to pay for those two provisions? It is a matter of Peter paying Paul, and of the poor being clobbered on this occasion.

Mr. Newton: No, it is not. I know that the hon. Gentleman's anxiety is totally genuine, but I had hoped he would recognise the trouble that we have taken in the regulations to protect sick and disabled people, about whom he and we are concerned.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Can my hon. Friend tell the House what proportion of those who are eligible to make single payment claims are doing so, and of those what proportion are repeat payments? I assure my hon. Friend that his statement will be welcomed by a large number of people.

Mr. Newton: Off the cuff I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures that he requires. It is certainly the case that alongside the regional and local office variations about which I spoke there are some astonishing variations between the numbers of claimants who receive a single payment, the numbers who receive many single payments and those who receive no payments at all.

Mr. Don Dixon: The Minister said that refugees would not be affected by this robbery. Is he aware that in my area the vast majority affected by these cuts will be the industrial refugees, who are in that position because of the chaos inflicted by Government policies? Is he aware of the inquisition that people have to go through to get these single payments?

Mr. Newton: It is right that for single payments and for weekly payments of supplementary benefit local offices should seek to check that claims are genuine. I have not so far spoken about the removal of the so-called suitable alternative furnished accommodation rule, which has been generally welcomed. That rule was widely seen as disadvantaging many unemployed people who were trying to move out of board-and-lodging accommodation.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Does my hon. Friend accept that the careful and thrifty people in my constituency deeply resent these single payments, the absence of checks and the fact that beds are supplied every 18 months? Leicester city council has launched a scurrilous campaign aimed at giving more to just one section of society, while those who are entitled to more do not get it because the council does not care about them.

Mr. Newton: I note what my hon. Friend says, and I am not entirely surprised in view of the amount that Leicester city council must have expended in producing this "Closing Down Sale" leaflet, which is littered with massive "tick lists". I am sure that that will arouse in many people just the kind of resentment about which my hon. Friend has spoken.

Mr. Jim Craigen: The regulations about which the Minister complains were introduced by

this Government. Are we to assume that the upsurge in the number of single payment claims is a reflection of the social and economic policies that the Government are pursuing? Is the Minister asking the House to believe that the one example that he cited from Strathclyde—he did not tell us whether the person would have been eligible for the items claimed — convinced him to do what he is proposing?

Mr. Newton: If some social workers are filling in forms for people, getting the people to sign them and sending them off, and if it then emerges within a matter of hours that the claimants themselves did not perceive that they had those needs, that in itself is a form of manipulation of the poor. I do not suggest that all social workers do that.

Mr. George Park: Will the Minister accept that as unemployment stretches into years, inevitably household goods wear our and cannot be replaced on the amounts available through supplementary benefit? He is adding to the great hardship already suffered by some people. What happens when the cash limited social fund runs out part way through a financial year? Do people have to reapply at the beginning of the next financial year and hope that their names are further up the list?

Mr. Newton: As I have said, the social fund will be a matter for debate later in the week. The anxiety reflected in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question is precisely why we have more generous rules in these regulations for those who have been on benefit for more than a year.

Mr. Peter Pike: Will the Minister accept that already many thousands of people do not get the single payments that they need because of the way in which the regulations operate? His statement is an appalling attack on the poorest and the most deprived sections of the community. The Government should accept that they are the guilty ones, because they created the unemployment and the deprivation. The Secretary of State for Social Services should use his influence in the Cabinet to deal with the real problems facing the country. The Government should not pursue this attack on poor and deprived people.

Mr. Newton: The statement means that as soon as the new regulations are in effect those claimants with genuine needs that ought to be met will have a better chance of getting them dealt with promptly and efficiently, because their claims will not be buried in this torrent of deliberately stimulated claims.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Will the Minister confirm the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen), that he, the Minister, voted for the regulations about which he is now so critical? Can the Minister explain to claimants the difference between those who take full advantage of the Chancellor's tax laws by employing a well-paid and well-heeled accountant, and social security claimants who are advised by well qualified social workers so that they can take advantage, of which they have more need, of these regulations?

Mr. Newton: It is appropriate for the Government to make sure that tax laws and social security laws operate


in the way that they were intended, and that they are not wide open to abuse. Successive Governments have done that. We are determined to tackle abuse on both fronts.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why does the Minister not listen to his own electorate? Does he not realise that millions of his supporters believe that by penalising poor people and giving money to the rich under Finance Bills the Government are wrong? They believe that that is wrong, and they object. Why do Government Back Benchers not stand up and represent middle-class opinion? Those people feel deeply ashamed of what the Government are doing. They know that the Government are wrong, and in all conscience they often write to their Members of Parliament and tell them that they object. They go to Conservative conferences to object, and yet the Government ignore them. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Government ignore them because they do not care.

Mr. Newton: I shall confine myself to saying that I had not hitherto seen the hon. Gentleman as a classic representative of middle-class opinion.

Business of the House

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a short statement about the business for Wednesday 23 July. The business for that day will now be as follows:
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Bill.
Motion relating to the Supplementary Benefit (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Wages Bill and the Agriculture Bill and Lords amendments to the Dockyard Services Bill.

Mr. Peter Shore: I note the change of business that has just been announced, and I have three questions to ask the Leader of the House. First, is not his statement further evidence of the truly chaotic state of affairs in the planning of Government business? Although we welcome the Government's capitulation on the amendments proposed in the other place to the Dockyard Services Bill, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that four Bills and an order on one day is an abuse of the legislative process?
Secondly, on the supplementary benefits order that we have just been discussing, which sharply limits single payments to the very poorest, does not the right hon. Gentleman understand how offensive it is that this squalid measure and the Social Services Bill that precedes it should be timed to coincide with a glittering state occasion, when the focus of the press will inevitably be not on the House of Commons but on Westminster abbey?
Thirdly, since the right hon. Gentleman obviously believes that all relevant business must be completed before the recess, will he reconsider the date of the summer recess so that the House can debate the major report from the Select Committee on Defence on the Westland affair, which is due to be published at 11 o'clock on Thursday?

Mr. Biffen: The right hon. Gentleman questions the nature of the business. I do not accept his strictures and I answer him in the same terms as I did the Leader of the Opposition.
As to the second point on the supplementary benefits order, given the nature of business for this week, Wednesday was the most convenient day to debate it. It is perverse constantly to draw attention to the royal wedding in relation to business which we should conduct anyway as a working Parliament.
Finally, I note the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety that Parliament should sit beyond this week and into the future. The motion for the recess will soon be tabled. It will be debatable, and the right hon. Gentleman can put his points then.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: Am I right in thinking that the royal wedding is in the morning?

Mr. Biffen: Yes.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: If so, what is the difficulty for right hon. and hon. Members to attend and debate the business in this place?

Mr. Biffen: I have shrunk from making that monumentally simple observation because I hoped that hon. Members would conclude that this line of argument was farcical.

Mr. David Alton: Given the continuing havoc in the Commonwealth following our failure to impose sanctions, does the Leader of the House agree that before the House rises on Friday there should be an urgent statement on the matter in the House? Would that not give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity to answer the serious allegations made yesterday in The Sunday Times?

Mr. Biffen: I take account of the hon. Gentleman's request and will pass it to the appropriate quarter.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. Friend considers the changes that may or may not be made in this week's business, will he remember that we would rather work late this week, finish on Friday and have our holidays with our children, who in Scotland have been on holiday for some weeks?

Mr. Biffen: That is a very good home-spun observation which will undoubtedly be put to the test when we debate the recess motion.

Mr. Robert Wareing: Has the right hon. Gentleman had a chance to see the Channel 4 television broadcast which went out on Thursday night entitled, "All the Prime Minister's Men"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with the business for this week.

Mr. Wareing: I am coming to that, Mr. Speaker. In view of the allegations made in that programme that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) issued a document to the Cabinet entitled, "It took a riot", following the Toxteth riot in Liverpool—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This widens the debate very much beyond the change of business for Wednesday.

Mr. Wareing: I shall come directly to the point. Is it not time that we had an urgent debate on the murder of Merseyside, which was opted for by the Government as a result of the response to that report in the Cabinet by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs?

Mr. Biffen: I did not see that television programme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have enough business on for the remainder of this week. I cannot accommodate the debate that he suggests, but he will have the chance, as a private Member, to raise the matter on Thursday or Friday.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I again remind the House that this is an Opposition day and that such exchanges take time out of that period? I shall call those hon. Members who have been rising, provided that they keep their questions brief and to the point.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the Dockyard Services Bill, will the Leader of the House do the penance of reading the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) on Friday? Is it not a classic case of filibustering? Before he talks about my torpedoing myself, will he admit, uncynically, that the Government had continued—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just what I was hoping would not happen. The hon. Gentleman's question has nothing to do with the business statement.

Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has responsibilities to the House as a whole, not simply to the Government of which he is a member? If there is a strong demand, certainly from the Opposition, for the report of the Select Committee on Defence on Westland to be debated, will he recognise the need for this to be seriously considered? Is it not scandalous that the House will go into recess for 10 or 11 weeks while a report will be published and widely debated in the media, yet hon. Members will have no opportunity to debate it in the House?

Mr. Biffen: It is because I have a responsibility to the House as a whole that I believe we should go into recess on Friday. If the hon. Gentleman genuinely disagrees with the proposition, doubtless he will vote against it, as will others.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I pre-empt further questions on that report, which is not due to be published until Thursday and so will not be affected by this statement.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for the Home Secretary to make an early statement on the appalling conditions which many visitors at Heathrow are facing? Many men, women and children are being kept for up to 24 hours without food or drink. Others have been taken to police cells and to prisons. I remind the hon. Gentleman that they have committed no crimes. The position at Heathrow is a disgrace. It does great damage to our efforts to promote Britain as a tourist centre and it is an example of grotesque maladministration by the Home Office.

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me on Thursday, when I said that I would have the matter investigated. I stand by those words and I also stand by the comments I made then—that I disagreed with the premise on which the hon. Gentleman based his remarks.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the many attempts to secure a statement on the Stalker affair by the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Will he prevail upon either of those gentlemen to make such a statement so that the matter will not rest in abeyance until 21 October?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the inquiry is continuing and that, under United Kingdom practice, it would be improper for a statement to be made now.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Since on Wednesday the House will be debating the Social Security Bill, which prevents claimants from having access to tribunals and making appeals, which will cause those who have lost limbs in industrial accidents to lose anything up to 14 per cent. in compensation, and which is an all-out onslaught on working people and supplementary benefits, would it not be a good idea if, before the debate started, the Leader of the House encouraged the Minister responsible to tell the House what supplementary benefits and grants will be included in the Civil List for the royal family in the following year and give an estimate of the cost of the royal wedding on that day?

Mr. Biffen: That is a proposition which I note and which enables us all to understand that much further the political philosophy of the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dafyld Wigley: May we have a statement on Wednesday on the grave situation that has developed in north Wales in relation to the radioactive lamb bah which, during the last few days, has shown that sheep will be stuck on the mountains in north Wales into the winter with no grazing and it is unlikely that they will be able to be moved? We have not yet had a statement from the Secretary of State for Wales on that matter and it will be appalling if the House goes into the summer recess without having had an opportunity to discuss that.

Mr. Biffen: I have a constituency interest in the sheep trade in north Wales and therefore I pay proper regard to what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am sorry that the matter could not be ventilated at Welsh questions today but I shall certainly take up the point with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Leader of the House aware that an incident occurred last Friday which causes concern, and which certainly causes me concern, which affected a Member of Parliament, and which needs brief investigation and a report to the House? My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was followed outside the precincts of the House and his movements tracked by a non-Member. It seems that reports of his movements were made. That is the sort of thing that happens in Eastern Europe. Why was this? Why did it take place? To whom was the report made and why?

Mr. Biffen: I am not clear what responsibility I may have in this matter, but it would be appropriate if the right hon. Gentleman set all the details out in a letter and we could then decide who is the responsible recipient.

Westland plc

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that this is a slightly unusual point of order and I equally realise, as the Leader of the House told us on Thursday, that the timing of the publication of the report of the Select Committee on Defence on the Westland scandal is a matter for the Committee's Chairman. However, I am convinced that the Chairman has done everything in his power to expedite the publication of that report and that is why I bring the matter to you.
I submit that for three reasons we are in a unique situation which requires your involvement, Mr. Speaker. After all, the House is going into recess for three months. Secondly, the Attorney-General, one of the most senior figures in our legal system, may find that he has to resign if it emerges that he, in his unique role, approved the charade of setting up a leak inquiry after having been told that that leak had been authorised by a senior fellow member of the Cabinet. Thirdly, it is unique because if the Attorney-General finds himself in such a situation, the Prime Minister becomes exposed and vulnerable.
Therefore, I submit that we cannot wait three months before the House determines the culpability of the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister, particularly as during those three months hon. Members will be deprived of the protection of the privileges of Parliament.
For those reasons, it is in everyone's interests that the House should have the maximum time to study all the evidence, not just to have the report in front of them, before Thursday's Prime Minister's questions and the debates on the motion for the summer Adjournment and the Consolidated Fund.
In that unusual combination of circumstances, and as you are the custodian of the interests of the House, Mr. Speaker, is there any way in which the weight of your office can assist the efforts that I know have already been made by the Chairman to secure the earliest possible publication of the report, possibly the day or even the evening before, so that hon. Members can study it overnight?

Mr. Speaker: The point of order really is not for me. As the right hon. Gentleman said, this is entirely a matter for the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence and I have no influence over when he decides to lay his report. If he wants to lay it before Thursday, presumably he can do so.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I raise briefly a matter about which you have shown some sympathy on previous occasions when matters have been debated outside, in broadcasting and the press? It goes without saying that the report of the Select Committee on Defence will receive extensive coverage. No doubt we shall switch on our television sets and see hon. Members debating with each other and so on. Yet for 10 or 11 weeks the House will not be able to debate the most important document on Government administration that has been published, which everyone recognises is virtually a time-bomb ticking away under the Government. Is not that a grotesque situation?

Mr. Speaker: The solution is in the hands of the House. The summer Adjournment motion will be debated on Thursday. The simple issue is whether the House adjourns or does not adjourn. If the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members feel strongly about this matter, the solution is in their hands. I cannot do anything about that.

Rate Support Grants Bill

Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order, of which I have given you notice, concerns the Rate Support Grants Bill, which is due for its Report stage and Third Reading this evening. There is a distinct possibility that the Bill will be certified as a money Bill under the terms of the Parliament Act 1911, the practical effects of which would be to prevent the other place from detailed consideration of the Bill.
The fact of that possibility has come as a bolt from the blue. It was never anticipated by us. It is especially surprising since the Bill amends two other Acts, the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 and the Local Government Finance Act 1982, neither of which was certified.
You well know, Mr. Speaker, that much of the work in Committee and on the Floor of the House on the details of Bills is about pressing Ministers to reconsider parts of measures and often seeking undertakings from Ministers that, if they cannot deal conclusively with a matter in this place, it will be dealt with in the other place when the Bill goes for its Committee stage there. That has been the assumption on which Labour Members have worked in Committee. In fairness, I believe that Ministers have also worked on that assumption and I think this is as much a surprise to them as to us. The Committee worked on the basis that the Bill would be fully debated in the other place. Had we not worked on that assumption, the whole tenor of its Committee stage would have been different.
My first point is that it is usually obvious from the start when a Bill is to be certified as a money Bill or one for aids and supplies. The most obvious example is the Finance Bill, which everyone accepts from the beginning is either a money Bill or one for aids and supplies. Where it is not obvious—it was not obvious either to us or to Ministers —would it not have been reasonable for the House and for members of the Committee to have been forewarned that the Bill was likely to be certified if it left the House of Commons in substantially the same form as it was introduced? A failure to give that information means that the proceedings upstairs and on the Floor of the House are prejudiced.
My second point concerns the merits of certifying the Bill. I realise that you, Mr. Speaker, will not make a decision on this matter until after Report and Third Reading, but I respectfully ask you take into account the following points. First, section 1(2) of the Parliament Act speaks of a Bill being certified when it deals with the imposition of charges out of funds provided by Parliament or their variation. The Bill does not deal with the imposition of charges, no money resolution was attached to it and in no way does it affect the amount paid out of funds levied by Parliament by way of rate support grant. It deal only with its detailed allocation and a narrow aspect of that—multipliers.
Secondly, the Parliament Act makes it clear that a Bill can be certified only if it deals with a matter of the imposition of charges out of funds voted by Parliament or certain other matters not relevant here. Even if you decide that the application of multipliers in the Bill does amount to an imposition of a charge, which seems to construe that provision of the Parliament Act very widely indeed, I submit that other matters are dealt with by the Bill which,


on any reading, are nothing whatever to do with the imposition of money provided by Parliament, nor are they subordinate to that.
I refer you particularly, Mr. Speaker, but not exclusively, to paragraphs 8, 9 and 13 of schedule 1. Those paragraphs affect generally the relationship between local government, central Government and Ministers, and the degree to which Ministers have to explain decisions that they have made by paragraphs 8 and 9. A duty on Ministers to provide Parliament and local government with the considerations leading to various determinations is substantially watered down so that the duty in future will be for the Secretary of State to provide information only "as he thinks desirable."
Under paragraph 13 the Secretary of State is given power to make assumptions about local authority budgets when he considers that information has not been provided by those authorities. Local government rates and taxes, and therefore their budgets, are specifically excluded from the operation of the Parliament Act.
The Bill was introduced retrospectively to overturn decisions by the courts and to deal with the possibility of other court actions. It was also introduced to establish certain numerals and multipliers and to change the nature of the information that the Secretary of State must give to the House.
I submit that the Bill cannot be certified as a money Bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider my submission that the House, and in particular members of the Committee, are put in a major difficulty because no advance information was given that there was even a remote possibility of the Bill being certifed as a money Bill.

Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the practice of my predecessors invariably has been to leave any certification of a money Bill until after the Bill has been given a Third Reading. If the House gives the Bill a Third Reading today, I shall decide the question of certification tomorrow. I shall, of course, carefully take into account the points raised by the hon. Member.

BILLS PRESENTED

SHOPS (No. 3)

Sir Fergus Montgomery, supported by Sir Marcus Fox, Mr. Michael Brown, Mr. James Couchman, Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Fred Silvester, Sir Reginald Eyre, Mr. Christopher Hawkins, Mr. Austin Mitchell, Mr. Clement Freud and Mr. Gerald Howarth, presented a Bill to relax the restrictions which apply to Sunday trading; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 24 October and to be printed. [Bill 215.]

REPRESENTATION OF THE WORKPEOPLE

Mr. Tony Benn presented a Bill to provide for the election of the Boards of Directors on certain public limited companies by the workpeople employed in those companies; to make provision regarding the powers of those boards; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 214.]

Opposition Day

[I5TH ALLOTTED DAY] [2ND PART]

Fight Against Crime

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to move the Opposition motion, I should announce that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That this House, in the light of the collapse of the Government's policies on law and order, calls for the implementation of a national crime prevention programme, including crime prevention grants for owner occupiers and tenants and a safe estates programme, in order to ease the pressure on policing work and so increase levels of detection and therefore deter criminals; and further calls for properly funded Government support for a nationwide system of victim support schemes.
A black cloud of lawlessness hangs over Britain loday. From Caithness to Cornwall, from Ceredigion to Kent, the country is suffering from the worst crime wave ever known. Last year 4,073,853 serious offences were reported in Great Britain. That was a 41 per cent. increase on 1978 — the last full year before the present Prime Minister came to office.
In Thatcher's Britain theft has risen by 30 per cent., violence against the person has risen by 42 per cent., burglaries are up by 52 per cent. and criminal damage is up by 73 per cent. Thatcher's Britain is a Britain in which one crime of violence is committed every four minutes, in which one act of criminal damage is committed ever 51 seconds, in which one burglary is committed ever 32 seconds, in which one case of theft or of handling stolen goods is committed every 15 seconds and in which one serious crime is committed every 8 seconds.
In Thatcher's Britain every family has a 30 per cent. chance of being victims of a serious crime. The crime rate is not only high, but is getting higher. When the Government came to office, 330 serious crimes were being committed every hour. Now, in Thatcher's Britain, not 330 but 465 serious crimes are being committed every hour.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: No. The Government took nearly an hour of our time with their disgraceful statement, and I cannot give way at this point in my speech.
In Thatcher's Britain the number of crimes of violence committed each day has gone up from 258 to 366. In Thatcher's Britain the number of acts of criminal damage has gone up from 979 a day to 1,695. In Thatcher's Britain the number of burglaries has gone up from 1,752 a day to 2,662. In Thatcher's Britain the number of thefts has gone up from 4,406 a day to 5,728. That was the grim position up to December 1985.
For England and Wales the figures for the first quarter of this year show yet another sharp rise, with total crime up 7 per cent., violence against the person up 5 per cent., theft up 5 per cent., burglary up 8 per cent., and criminal damage up 14 per cent.
Crime is not only costly to victims in terms of damage and injury, but it is a terrible financial drain on the nation. It is an enormous cost to the police, who spend an average of £2,350 on clearing up each crime that is solved. It is a cost to the courts, to the probation and after-care services, to the legal aid service, to the prison system and to the criminal injuries compensation system. The sums involved in the current year total £4,500 million—a 43 per cent. increase in real terms since this Government came to office.
There are also costs to the economy and to individuals of losses due to crime and to precautions against crime. Insurance payments to crime amounted to £320 million in 1984, and £40 million was spent on alarm systems. The Home Office estimates that in 1984 the total value of property stolen in offences of theft, burglary and robbery was over £1 billion. The cost of fraud is estimated at £3 billion. Much of that fraud is against the Inland Revenue—a highly appropriate crime against the Government, as it is the ultimate act of privatisation. All told it is probable that crime costs our country £10 billion every year. Year by year that cost is growing.
Those are the material costs, but we must add to those the costs to the security and tranquillity of our society. In addition to the facts of crime, there is the fear of crime. Every survey shows the extent of the fear of crime, even among people who may never become victims of crime. The recent Merseyside survey shows that 39 per cent. of respondents worry a lot about crime, 27 per cent. worry about being burgled, and 24 per cent. worry about vandalism. A total of 57 per cent. of women worry about going out on their own after dark. That is almost the same as the proportion of women in Islington who avoid going out after dark for fear of sexual attack or street robbery.
The Home Office study on the fear of crime published in 1984 showed that 52 per cent. of inner city dwellers seriously worry about becoming victims of crime. It showed that 41 per cent. of women in the inner cities feel very unsafe walking alone at night in their neighbourhoods. It showed that 12 per cent. of all inner city residents never go out at night because of crime. The "British Crime Survey", published by the Home Office last year, showed that 40 per cent. of women under 30 were worried about becoming rape victims. Half the women questioned said that they avoided going out unaccompanied after dark. In high crime areas, 18 per cent. of the elderly said that they never went out after dark, wholly or in part because of fear of crime.
Crime and the fear of crime destroy human rights. Every crime means individual suffering and a loss to the whole community. Every crime takes something away from its individual victims—their freedom, their peace of mind, their property, their health or even their lives. Crime of any sort also takes something away from society as a whole. We all lose when someone smashes a public telephone, burns or defaces a building or defrauds the Revenue. However, the fear of crime also diminishes both individuals and society. Parents grow fearful of letting their children out of their sight. The fear of crime changes people's habits and diminishes their freedom of movement and activity. As a Home Office researcher puts it, crime has
the disabling consequence of restricting access to the social and cultural opportunities of society.

In this predicament, people rightly look to the police for safety and protection. The police do their very best, but far too often they know that that very best is nowhere near good enough. Clear-up rates for many crimes are low, and they are falling. Since the Government came into office the overall crime clear-up rate in England and Wales has fallen from 42 to 35 per cent.; the clear-up rate for theft has fallen from 40 to 35 per cent.; for burglaries from 32 to 29 per cent.; and for criminal damage from 30 to 23 per cent. Nearly three burglars in every four get clean away with the loot, while almost four vandals in every five evade detection and punishment.
There are more police, but the burden on them is greater than ever before. Under this Government the number of crimes committed per police officer has risen from 24 to 29 a year. If the Government reacted to the statistical success rate of the police in the same way as they treated the coal and shipbuilding industries, by now the Prime Minister would have put Sir Ian MacGregor in charge of closing down police stations throughout the country. That reaction to the police would be as unfair and as illogical as it was to other industries and services.
Much of the burden that hinders the police has been imposed by the Government or is the result of Government policy. Public order duties are increasingly distracting police from the priority job of fighting crime. That was made clear by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his report this year on the Metropolitan police. He said:
There were … occasions when external demands (for example, for public order duties elsewhere) left insufficient numbers to maintain essential services.
The demands of training for the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and other onerous Government legislation are reducing the operational effectiveness of the police. In his report in 1985 the chief constable of Staffordshire said that training commitments for the Act has so far resulted
in the loss of over 2,000 man weeks of operational availability.
He complained:
It is often difficult to find the time for training in new legislation without either having to curtail operational availability or cancelling other, equally important, forms of training.
At the Police Federation conference two months ago Mr. Tony Crowe, the chairman of the sergeants section, said that the Act had
taken supervising ranks off the street, leaving inexperienced constables to fend for themselves.
He said that reduction in the first line of supervision would bring a generation of constables who had never had the necessary advice and guidance to develop skills.
A report in The London Standard of 10 July quoted police in Brixton as saying:
Some detective work is now being done by telephone and residents are going to have to realise the choice we have. Do we take men away from a murder inquiry to investigate something like a stolen car radio? That's what staff shortages mean to us.
A parliamentary answer to a question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) last week gave the disturbing news that since this Government came to office the number of police in London and the City engaged in the investigation of company fraud has actually been reduced, at a time when fraud is soaring and is more dangerous a crime than it has ever been.

Mr. Tim Smith: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: I do not have time to give way. The Government took up an enormous amount of time with a disgraceful statement about social security. That has taken time away from the Opposition debate.
In the face of this alarming story of record crime rates, reduced clear-up rates and reduced police efficiency, what we get from this Government is a combination of shrill slogans and ineffable complacency. In their 1979 manifesto, the Conservatives proclaimed:
Surer detection means surer deterrence.
Detection is less sure now than it was seven years ago. In their 1983 manifesto the Government said vaingloriously:
already street crime is being reduced and public confidence improved in some of the worst inner-city areas.
Yet in those inner-city areas crime under this Government has risen by two thirds — half as much again as the depressing national average.
The Home Secretary said in a press release last March that the number of burglaries had fallen by 4 per cent. the previous year, which suggested that the crime prevention campaign might be beginning to bear fruit. He spoke too soon, because in the quarter that ended with the very month during which he made that boast burglaries rose by 8 per cent.
In this House two months ago the Home Secretary said:
Local authorities can use the housing investment resources available to them for crime prevention and security measures."—[Official Report, 8 May 1986; Vol. 97, c. 281.]
The right hon. Gentleman seems to be completely unaware that under this Government those housing investment resources have been slashed by 70 per cent. Local authorities do not even have the cash to carry out their most basic housing responsibilities, let alone expand the necessary work of crime prevention.
On 13 March the Prime Minister said, in her most characteristic let-them-eat-cake frame of mind:
Most people will and should he able to make their own provision for crime prevention." — [Official Report, 13 March 1986; Vol. 93, c. 1079.]
We know that that is exactly what the right hon. Lady is preparing to do for herself in her retreat to Fort Dulwich, but surveys such as that in Islington show that income is a major factor in determining whether security devices are installed and that many people who would like to take crime prevention measures cannot afford to do so. It is time for a nationally led and co-ordinated crime prevention campaign. It is clear from their ludicrous amendment to the Labour party motion that no such lead can be expected from this Government.
Already the Government's efforts to show what they are doing about crime prevention have taken on an air of pathos. Earlier this month the Home Secretary planted a question with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) that had so little positive to claim about Government action on crime prevention that his answer was reduced to boasting about raising the profile of crime prevention and urging various organisations to identify crime prevention potential. Two seminars have been held at Downing street amid the kind of fanfares that Mr. Bernard Ingham usually reserves for vilifying a Cabinet Minister out of favour. Nothing positive has come from either seminar.
The Government's amendment goes through the usual motions of proclaiming
additional resources … devoted to law and order".
In fact, expenditure on policing during the current financial year in real terms is due to fall slightly. The report

on spending on law and order produced a few months ago by the partly Government funded National Institute of Economic and Social Research states:
there is little ostensible association between police resources and recorded clear up rates.
The outcome of all the spending has been a 4 per cent. increase in serious crime.
Cuts and spending ceilings imposed by the Government on local authorities—for example, £20,000 million less in rate support grant — mean fewer caretakers, park-keepers and attendants who look after public places and the people who use them. The loss of these public employees means more graffiti, vandalism and petty crime. It means also that public places stay vandalised or derelict for longer periods. That in turn reduces the character of the environment and stimulates further crime.
That is why the Labour Government will launch an immediate programme aimed at preventing crime and making neighbourhoods safer. We want to help city, town and rural areas, tenants and owner-occupiers. Some council estates have suffered especially high crime rates. The fear of crime is both deep and wide, especially in inner city estates, and it causes people to be trapped into their homes from dusk till dawn. They are fearful even of opening their doors to callers.
Many estates face intense problems because of bad design, inadequate maintenance, cuts in caretaking and other staff, insensitive and remote bureaucracy, inadequate provision for children and families, inadequate privacy and insulation, no opportunity for people to meet in safety and insufficient protection for ethnic minorities and other victims of harassment. All these problems can be reduced with the right approach from national Government and local government and from the community as a whole. The Labour party's policy towards crime prevention on local authority housing estates acknowledges that improving security and public safety and reducing crime are linked crucially to increased investment in public sector housing.
Labour will act to make tenants safer and more secure. We need more resident caretakers, tower-block receptionists and other estate staff who are properly trained, supervised and supported, in conjunction with physical security measures, a responsive repairs service, a sensitive allocation policy and effective neighbourhood policing. Such measures will be planned in accordance with the wishes of the local community. As we say in our motion, Labour will establish "a safe estates programme". With the increased allocations for housing expenditure that Labour will make available, local authorities will be encouraged to place more caretakers, including resident caretakers, and to strengthen front entrance doors, frames, locks and windows.

Mr. Tim Smith: How much will it all cost?

Mr. Kaufman: Much less than the £10 billion that the economy loses as a result of crime.
We shall improve lighting on streets, stairwells, corridors, balconies and walkways. We shall replace breakable fittings and materials with those that cannot be broken. We shall install entryphone systems and closed circuit television surveillance in medium and high-rise blocks. We shall adopt design changes to reduce crime and the fear of it—

Mr. Tim Smith: Unbreakable windows?

Mr. Kaufman: I bet that the Prime Minister has unbreakable windows at Dulwich.
We shall adopt design changes to reduce crime and the fear of it by reducing the number of escape routes for criminals, by removing connecting walkways and by partitioning large blocks. We shall establish carefully located and supervised play areas and introduce regular patrolling on foot by caretakers and other council employees. We shall establish more support for established tenants' and residents' associations.
The Labour Government will take measures also to prevent crime in private housing and in public places. We shall legislate in our first Session to make available crime prevention grants on application by both home owners and tenants. These grants will be available within the rateable value limits that apply to improvement grants and repair grants. Their cost will be contained within the increased housing investment allocations that will be provided to local authorities as part of the Labour Government's drive against bad housing and unemployment. Such grants will be extremely cost-effective. The average cost of clearing up a crime is nearly 50 times more than the cost of basic home security provision. Let it be known throughout the country that tonight Tory Members will be voting against a national system of crime prevention grants.
The Labour Government will ensure that local authorities involve residents in the planning of security and safety measures in homes and in the surrounding streets or courtyards. We shall encourage the provision of safer public transport. We believe that security should be improved by providing alarm buttons and closed-circuit TV at bus and train stations and by closing off little-used passageways, especially on Underground systems. We shall — [Interruption.] I am interested to note that Conservative Members should heckle so much. I am putting forward practical plans to deal with crime, and all we get from Conservative Members and the Government is waffle, seminars and slogans. There is no action and we have the worst crime rate that Britain has ever known.

Mr. John Wheeler: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Kaufman: The needs of security and the fears of passengers on public transport—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I shall not give way to the pathetic hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler), who merely rises to toady to the Government on every possible opportunity.
The needs of security and the fears of passengers—

Mr. James Couchman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) to refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) as a pathetic Member?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): There is nothing unparliamentary about that.

Mr. Kaufman: There can never be anything unparliamentary about the truth, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The needs of security and the fears of passengers on public transport should be taken into account in planning bus routes, bus stop location and crewing. We shall take measures to reduce the high level of car crime. We shall have discussions with manufacturers to produce design changes—

Mr. Wheeler: That is being done now.

Mr. Kaufman: But nothing is happening, even after seven years.

Mr. Wheeler: It will happen.

Mr. Kaufman: These design changes will be related, for example, to steering column locks and electronic locking and alarms.

Mr. Wheeler: That was done in 1979.

Mr. Kaufman: Are Conservative Members saying that the measures that I am suggesting have been in operation for seven years, bearing in mind the 41 per cent. increase in crime and the highest level of auto crime ever known?
The Government and Conservative Members generally now make many claims and all sorts of promises. They have had seven years in which to keep their promises and yet they have broken every one. Let it be clearly understood that when Conservative Members vote this evening they will be voting against the Labour party's safe estates and crime prevention campaigns.
Even with much more co-ordinated community action in defence of law and order, the Labour Government will still inherit a high level of crime. Many crimes mean many victims and it is time for much more positive action to be taken to support victims at their time of loss and injury. The Government have the impertinence in their amendment to claim credit for the development of victim support schemes, but the victim support movement tells a different story. Government support for the movement amounts to precisely to £286,000.

Mr. Tim Smith: That is more than the Labour Government provided.

Mr. Kaufman: That sum is small enough in itself and it is not even available in the long-term.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: How much did the Labour Government provide?

Mr. Kaufman: In his report, which was issued the week before last, the chairman of the National Association of Victims Support Schemes expressed concern that no Government allocation had been made to extend beyond 1987. He contrasted what he described as the Home Secretary's "fine words" with the absence of secure funding. He said:
the last twelve months have been marked by a growing anger at the mis-match between official statements of support for victim support schemes and the level of financial assistance provided.
He warned against the Government abdicating their responsibility towards victims.
The association's annual report starkly stated:
The precarious position of schemes' finances unquestionably limits their scope to develop a full service to the victims of crimes. Not only the shortage of funds, but also their lack of continuity, continue serving as grievous constraints on the work of many schemes.
The Association of Chief Police Officers made the accusation that the effectiveness of victims support schemes is
constrained through inadequate and haphazard funding".
Set against those facts, today's Government amendment is the rankest hypocrisy. A Labour Government will act to ensure that victims support schemes are available throughout the country. Many parts of Britain entirely lack such schemes, yet the work carried out by those


schemes, to counsel, comfort and help crime victims, including abused children, battered wives and rape victims, is beyond price. We will discuss with the National Association of Victims Support Schemes what sums of money it needs to provide the services that it regards as essential. When we have costed them carefully, we will provide the money that is needed. Victim support on a much larger and wider scale calls for sums that are tiny within the national budget. We will enable that support to be provided. When Tory Members vote this evening, they will be voting against positive Government assistance for victim support.
Crime is a disease in our society. Every disease has its causes. The Government fail to address those causes. In fact, they are responsible for some of them. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research gives details of the links between social deprivation and crime. It points out that those authorities that have the highest recorded crime rates include those most densely populated, those with the worst overcrowding and those with high rates of unemployment.
The position was put even more bluntly in the annual report of the chief constable of Greater Manchester, which was published last week. In that report, Mr. James Anderton dealt directly with Greater Manchester, but it applies to the country as a whole. He said:
Burdens on police in Greater Manchester have grown against a background of alarming unemployment generally averaging 15 per cent. for all age groups throughout the area, but with a much larger problem in the inner-city. Perhaps of more telling significance, from the standpoint of law and public order, is the fact that the figure for long-term unemployment among the crime-prone younger age groups in the worst affected parts of the conurbation, not just in the inner-city, ranges from 50 per cent. to a staggering 80 per cent. or more. Policing certainly has to be wise, caring and sensible in those distinctive localities where almost the entire population is out of work and living on 'social security.'
High levels of crime tell us not only about the kinds of criminals at large in our society, but about the kind of society that creates the conditions that nurture such criminals. When confrontation is deliberately incited, when bitterness is provoked and envy is stirred up, when more and more people are frustrated, living without hope, and made to feel that society has rejected them, crimes of every kind are more likely to be committed.
Under this Government, Britain has become a family divided against itself. Division is deliberately stirred up between old and young, the retired and those still at work, employed and unemployed, north and south, black and white, inner city and suburbs. No family can prosper when some of its members feel neglected and despised. To have any hope of success, the fight against crime needs a new start. For that new start, we need a new Government.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof,
'reaffirms its support for the Government's commitment to pursuing an honest, vigorous and coherent policy in the fight against crime; welcomes the additional resources the Government has devoted to law and order, the success of Government backed crime prevention initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch and property marking schemes, the encouragement given to local crime prevention initiatives, and the development of victim support schemes; expresses support for the police in their efforts to build closer links with the community; and believes everybody has a responsibility to participate in the fight against crime.'.

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) seems to believe that by repeating statistics he can make them less misleading. He repeated statistics that he has cited in the House. They are designed to show that the "black cloud", as he called it, settled over Britain—what he called "Thatcher's Britain" — in the years following 1979. If we are to have a serious discussion, I hope that we can start from the fact that recorded crime has risen steadily—between 5 and 7 per cent.—over the past 30 years.
One can toss about statistics. I could, if I wished to do so, show the right hon. Gentleman that violent crime, which is what concerns most people most of the time, rose substantially faster in what I suppose I must call Wilson's and Callaghan's Britain. Since 1979, that type of crime has slowed down in its rate of increase. Although the right hon. Gentleman spent at least 10 minutes tossing about such statistics, I do not think that it is sensible to do so. I am prepared to agree that the nation faces a major problem that has been mounting over 30 years, and that it requires a major and a national effort to deal with it.
The right hon. Gentleman's party has no credentials or credibility to allow it to join in such an effort. We heard nothing today from the right hon. Gentleman about attacks on the police and on most things that they do which have characterised past debates on the subject, especially the recent debate on policing in London. The right hon. Gentleman made an unfair and an inexact comment or two, especially about police training under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. When there is a major piece of new legislation, there must be a major and a once and for all development of police training. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen would be the first to complain if the police were not adequately trained in the law of the land, especially in the safeguards for the citizen which the Act introduced.
Those safeguards were long debated by the right hon. Gentleman and me in Committee and on the Floor of the House. They are extensive and, in some respects, complicated. They would have been much more extensive and complicated if we had accepted the Opposition's amendments. During those debates we tried to keep the scheme and the safeguards as simple as we could, bearing in mind the burden on the police that would inevitably result.

Mr. Wheeler: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I shall give way to my hon. Friend because he was grossly maltreated by the right hon. Member for Gorton.

Mr. Wheeler: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, when he and I spent 59 sittings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, the Opposition pressed strongly for safeguards concerning liberty and the treatment of individuals, and that my right hon. Friend saw the wisdom of many of them? Does my right hon. Friend not find it curious that the Opposition should now criticise an Act that they played a part in developing for the obligations that it imposes on the police service?

Mr. Hurd: I agree. The right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members generally thrive on a short memory, because if people had long memories, Labour's arguments would rapidly collapse.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned public order duties. I am worried about the way in which the argument


is developing. I do not understand the Labour party's position on public order. It seems to boil down to saying that some people deserve protection and others do not, and that, for example, the electricians and others who choose to work at Wapping should be left out of account. I do not know whether the argument is that there should be no policing at Wapping, so that it is impossible for people to exercise their right to work, or whether there should be only enough police to ensure that they are outdone and outnumbered by the pickets. The right hon. Gentleman did not develop that argument. It is an absolutely crucial argument if we are to get the balance right.
The question of the balance in the use of resources inside any police force, including the Metropolitan police, must be left to the chief officer of police. I am deeply concerned that the Labour party's proposals would lead to the politicisation of police forces and political decisions as to who should be protected by the law and the police and who should not. No doubt, there will be occasions on which Labour Members can develop their points.
The subject of the Opposition's motion is crime prevention and victim support, and I welcome that. Strenuous efforts in crime prevention were begun by my predecessor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan). Of course, that work had been going on before but he placed new emphasis on it and put new resources into it. Since then, we have always been missionaries in this respect. If the right hon. Member for Gorton and his colleagues are to join in the efforts and activities that are afoot throughout the country, they are welcome. The fact that they have lagged a little behind in the past makes their joining no less welcome now.
Of course, there is a difference in approach, which is illustrated by the Opposition's motion and the Government's amendment. The main difference between us is not on the need for crime prevention but on the attitudes to public spending in relation to it. I could not understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Gorton. Presumably, he was at the gathering at the weekend at Bishop's Stortford and knows what the instructions are. They are clear— that Labour will tax the very rich, which means those on £27,000 a year, which will yield £3·6 billion. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has told us that that money will be used for just four provisions—pensions, child benefit, long-term unemployment pay and tax allowances for low-paid couples, and nothing else. Opposition spokesmen are enjoined not to promise anything else during the first two years in government. That is the distinction— famous in the Labour party— between the pledge and the lightly given promise. We have pledges, which fall within the £3·6 billion, and lightly given promises, which are the rest of the £24 billion so far promised. The schemes of the right hon. Member for Gorton, including those announced today, clearly fall into the category of the lightly given promises. They will not be undertaken in those two years, although the right hon. Gentleman said something very different today. I do not understand therefore how, after what we have heard about the Labour party's priorities, the right hon. Gentleman can pretend that he is giving priority to crime prevention or to victim support.
Once again, by pretending to give priority to everything, the Opposition are clearly showing that they give priority to nothing and that they have not thought matters through. One must therefore turn to the past to see where their real priorities are likely to lie in the future. When one considers the disgraceful state in which my predecessors in 1979 found the prisons and the police, it seems unlikely that the type of activities that the right hon. Member for Gorton now praises will find any decent priority in a Labour Government's programme.
I should like to consider what is being done. I hope that the House will forgive me if I dwell on this, but the main thesis of the right hon. Member for Gorton was that we were doing nothing, except making a few speeches and sermons. I should like to start with the work of the police in crime prevention. I am anxious that this work should be stressed because I am concerned that, in recent weeks, much publicity has been attached to the police and their equipment for use in the last resort if there was a breakdown in public order. It is high time that a little more attention was paid to what the police are doing day by day to prevent crime.
Police work with young people in schools is obviously crucial in view of the peak age of offending — 15 for boys and 14 for girls. Undoubtedly, it is an advantage to have 43 different local police forces, almost all of which are experimenting and innovating. The Staffordshire scheme for young people — SPACE — occupies some 23,000 secondary school pupils for the whole of August each year in more than 2,500 different activities. The signs are that it has contributed to a decrease in offending by youngsters. The West Midlands police have initiated an ambitious project in the Ladywood and Handsworth district of Birmingham — the Ladworth project — in which local agencies work together with community groups to provide recreation and employment opportunities for young people in the inner city.
The Lancashire police run a scheme in the Lake District, which is fully used most weekends of the year in youth activities. The Cumbria and Northamptonshire police forces run more specifically work-orientated schemes to give young people some work experience with the police. The Leicestershire police, whom I recently visited, hope to mount an even more ambitious scheme in the Highfields area of Leicester to give selected youngsters a chance to try a variety of jobs in co-operation with local police.
Those are all police schemes which show how foolish it is to argue that the police neglect this aspect and are interested only in equipment and new powers.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that I have written to him about forensic science problems and the advantage of developing forensic science, especially under Brian Caddy of the university of Strathclyde? Is there not a case for having a forensic department to which defence counsel can turn for second opinions, in view of all the difficulties of the Birmingham six?

Mr. Hurd: Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister of State could deal with that point in detail. Although it is a serious suggestion, it does not flow immediately from the points I was developing. As regards the Birmingham six, the hon. Gentleman, who takes a serious interest in this


matter, knows that I am deliberately taking time to examine whether there is fresh evidence in Mr. Mullins' book.
I shall move now to the activity of other Government agencies involved in the subject which the Opposition chose for their motion and about which the right hon. Member for Gorton said that nothing was being done. We have a programme of measures designed to improve the security of owner — occupiers and tenants. Some of those measures are financial. The Department of the Environment has set aside £50 million of housing capital resources in this financial year for allocation by the urban housing renewal unit to run-down local authority estates. In the 33 cases approved to date, one third of the resources has been spent on crime prevention measures—exactly the sort of point about which the Opposition talk.
The right hon. Member for Gorton may not know about the priority estates programme of the Department of the Environment but it is relevant to his points. That programme is working on measures which help to reduce crime, with special emphasis on the participation of residents — another point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Many of the projects funded through the urban programme contribute to crime prevention. Last year, some £6 million was spent on projects directly concerned with crime. Community programmes involve a substantial commitment of resources to crime prevention projects on housing estates.
Under the national initiative, announced earlier this year, more than 5,000 community programme cases have been approved for crime prevention work. These resources represent a substantial Government investment in safer estates. We are also considering ways of improving the design of estates to deter crime. The Department of the Environment is commissioning consultants to prepare a handbook on improving dwellings and the environmental features of local authority estates with special attention being paid to security and crime prevention. I do not rule out the possibility of developing further action along those lines.
I turn to one aspect which I do not think the right hon. Member for Gorton mentioned but which is crucial in effective crime prevention — the neighbourhood watch scheme. There are now 14,500 schemes in England and Wales—an increase of more than 75 per cent. over the past six months. Properly designed neighbourhood watch schemes can reduce local crime, improve relations between police and the community, reduce the fear of crime—about which the right hon. Member for Gorton is quite right — and provide a new impetus for neighbours to meet and work together.
I suppose, following on from the analysis of the right hon. Member for Gorton, that the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of all that. But what is happening, for example, in Manchester under the new leadership of the city council? Far from forging the type of efforts about which the right hon. Member for Gorton made a speech, it is deliberately holding them back. It is making it more difficult for residents to come together with the police to make their streets "safer and more secure", to quote the right hon. Gentleman's objective.
The right hon. Member for Gorton says that more money should be given to local authorities for this purpose. If more money were given to Manchester city council, what would it spend it on? I bet that it would spend the money on producing even glossier and more

vicious editions of its disgraceful publication "Police Watch". I say that plucking just one example from the several others that could be used, and there are others in London. If the Labour party is to be taken seriously in the attitude that it has expressed today, it will have to do something to restrain and reverse the policies of those Labour authorities—fortunately, a minority—which are taking exactly the opposite line to that taken by the Labour Front Bench.
We intend to maintain and boost the momentum behind the neighbourhood watch schemes and we shall be launching a new national magazine in co-operation with the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "Will it be a glossy one?"] The difference between what we propose and the behaviour of Manchester city council is that we are helping communities to work with the police to protect their property, whereas Manchester city council is undermining those efforts.
To continue with the list of actions that we are taking, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have told him of the five local schemes that the Home Office is now operating in Swansea, Wellingborough, Croydon, Tyneside and Bolton. A two-week autocrime campaign in Wellingborough concentrating on the major car parks produced a 10 per cent. reduction in thefts of cars in May compared with the same period last year and compared with a 5½ per cent. increase for the Wellingborough subdivision as a whole. Autocrime in the car parks targeted was halved. That is just one small practical example of what is being done through our crime prevention programmes.
The two seminars, which the right hon. Gentleman lightly mocked but which I am glad to say were fully supported by the trade union movement, have produced a whole series of new ventures for preventing crime m both the public sector and the private sector. I hope that we shall be making further announcements about actual decisions in the coming months, but they cover insurance, increased protection against residential burglary and increased security in the design of cars.
The right hon. Gentleman was quite correct to stress that victim support is crucial and that for too long victims have been the forgotten parties in the criminal justice system. The Government have accepted the need to provide the movement with some support from public funds and we have trebled the grant to the National Association of Victims Support Schemes in the past two years, enabling it to increase its staff, to move to larger premises and substantially to expand its work. Contrary to the impression given by the right hon. Gentleman, a survey of 200 local schemes in 1985–86 showed that half were receiving grants from central Government totalling £750,000. This was by far the main source of funds for local schemes, the same 200 receiving £250,000 from local authorities and only £88,000 from private sources such as trusts and charities and their own fund-raising initiatives. There is great scope for expanding and further varying the sources of income for victim support schemes. Nevertheless, this year we are for the first time providing some direct funding for local schemes. We have provided £136,000 to establish a contingency fund administered by the national association to help hard-pressed schemes and 68 schemes have already received grants from that source, which, according to the national association, will serve as a lifeline for many schemes.
The first schemes of this kind were established in Bristol in 1974. There were 30 local schemes when we came to office. There are now 300. In 1985–86, nearly 4,000 trained volunteers dealt with 185,000 victims, mostly referred to them by the police — a sixfold increase. I thoroughly agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we should put emphasis on this aspect and we are doing so in this and several other ways. As a further development, we propose to introduce provisions next Session requiring the courts either to make a compensation order when sentencing an offender or to give specific reasons for not doing so, thus shifting the onus and putting a responsibility on the court to make an order or to explain why it is not doing so. We are preparing comprehensive guidelines to help the courts to assess realistic amounts of compensation in personal injury cases.
I hope that I have said enough to show that in the two areas singled out by the Opposition—crime prevention and victim support — major efforts are already in progress, employing not just the resources of the Home Office but the efforts of police, local authorities and a wide range of Government agencies. This should be a national effort and if today's debate, despite the right hon. Gentleman's perverse speech, means that the Opposition now intend to be constructive and put behind them the kind of activity of which I complained in relation to Manchester city council, I welcome them aboard.
In our last debate on these matters I had a rather odd experience. I was chided by the right hon. Gentleman for uttering homilies, but later in his speech he started talking about the need for partnership. For a moment I genuinely thought that he was quoting a speech of mine that I had forgotten so as to mock me further, but he then sat down—having used exactly the type of formulation about partnership that I had used. The Labour party has a long way to go before its credentials in this area are established, but if the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends wish to join in a national effort, despite the perversity of their specific proposals, I believe that that will be helpful.

Mr. James Hill: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his written answer to my question about the neighbourhood watch scheme in Southampton. I am especially sad that only one of the city's 15 wards has such a scheme and that only four members of the police are currently organising such schemes. Does my right hon. Friend think that there could be a little more publicity and television time devoted to the scheme, as I understand that there is a great deal of literature at the police stations just waiting for people to come forward?

Mr. Hurd: I shall certainly look at the position in Southampton. I think that many cities, having watched the rapid growth of the schemes elsewhere, will now be looking to their laurels to ensure that they compete. The material is certainly readily available from the Home Office. My hon. Friend the Minister of State may be able to say a little more about Southampton when he winds up, following that useful intervention which illustrates the impetus behind the whole effort. I hope that today's debate will add to that impetus.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr.

Kaufman) referred to a black cloud of lawlessness hanging over the country. The assumption is that crime stems from unemployment, the fragmentation of the family, the glorification of violence on television and, in my view, the example set by the state. I wish to draw attention to one example of that.
On 7 June on the George Negus interview programme on Radio 2UE in Sydney and Radio 3AK in Melbourne, Australia, Mr. Richard Victor Hall made a number of statements about a book by Mr. Peter Wright, a former employee of M15, referring to lawlessness and law breaking in Britain. According to the Australian media, Mr. Peter Wright claimed that M15 had attempted to bug the French and West German embassies in London, placed microphones behind the cipher machines in the Greek and Indonesian embassies, bugged diplomatic conferences at Lancaster house in the 1950s and 1960s and the Zimbabwe independence negotiations in 1979. Mr. Wright alleges that M15 entered Russian consulates abroad, plotted against Mr. Harold Wilson during his 1974–76 premiership and diverted resources to investigate Left-wing groups in Britain instead of setting its own house in order. He is also believed to have details of a plot to assassinate President Nasser during the Suez crisis and details of meetings between officials from American intelligence agencies, the National Security Agency, the CIA, the FBI, GCHQ and M15. He alleges that M15 was involved in the testing of poison on sheep and in switching number plates on vehicles in this country. He also alleges Nikita Khrushchev's suite at Claridges was bugged during his visit in the 1950s and refers to the opening of diplomatic bags by M15 and other forms of law breaking in Britain.
Mr. Wright, who left M15 in 1976 and lives in Tasmania, cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. Instead, our Government are seeking an injunction to prevent Heinemann's Australian subsidiary from publishing his memoirs by bringing a civil suit for breach of confidence. Sir Robert Armstrong, the Cabinet Secretary, has argued in an affidavit that publication would lose confidence in M15's ability to protect classified information. The Government have refused to tell Mr. Wright's lawyers which extract of the memoirs he has written they believe should remain confidential.
That is law breaking in Britain, and we now see our Government involved in a cover up. The proposition in the Government's amendment, which stands in the Prime Minister's name, is rubbish. The Prime Minister does not believe in containing law and order or in reasonable policies on law and order. She believes that it is right for the state to break the law, and that is why the Attorney-General is using the courts in the way that he is at present. He is hiding the breaking of the law by British civil servants.

Mr. Julian Critchley: We are witnessing a splendid irony. At the same moment as the Shadow Home Secretary discovers crime, the chairman of the Conservative party stumbles across sin. We shall not be short of sermons!
The relish which the Labour party has brought to the problems of crime—the legacy of the Thatcher years, and so on—is matched only by the relish with which the chairman of the Conservative party upbraids the British


people and attacks the "permissive society". It appears that when it comes to crime, it is everyone's fault but our own.
Faced with the question that from time to time our constituents still put to us — "Why can politicians do nothing about crime?" — we politicians are, for a moment at least, lost for words. The Labour party and the Prince of Wales together are inclined to blame the figures for rising crime on rising unemployment, especially among young people. Who am I to quarrel with the Prince of Wales? There is a good deal in that argument. On the other hand, the chairman of the Conservative party goes into the pulpit and blames the so-called permissive society. Working on the assumption that the Conservative party needs all the friends that it can get, he is enlisting the so-called moral majority—salvationists who are no longer interested in the next world, only in this one. May God preserve us from them!
We all know only too well how the argument runs. The moralists say that rising crime is due to kids staying up late at night and watching the telly; to the BBC for showing so much sex and violence; to easier divorce; to married women going out to work; to the fact that homosexual behaviour between adults is no longer a criminal offence; to the fact that a play in the West End is no longer censored; and to the fact that robbers are no longer flogged and murderers no longer swing.
That is nonsense, or worse. It is worse because, as far as I know, the Conservative party is not committed to doing anything about it. Conservatives are not pledged in any manifesto to reverse any of the social legislation that has been passed by this House over the last 15 to 20 years—in which case it is hypocritical as well. However, it is well known that humbug is the essential lubricant of life—certainly of our life in this place.
There is in fact an answer to the question that our constituents are for ever asking — "What can the politicians do about rising crime?". It is quite simple. We should increase the price of drink. I beg of hon. Members to stay with me. I have no wish to lose all my friends. Let me explain. In 1946, notifiable offences against the person in England and Wales were 4,062, and the real cost of a bottle of whisky at 1985 prices was £16·30. By 1956, under Sir Anthony Eden, the real cost of a bottle of whisky had fallen to £14·60 and violent crime figures had risen to nearly 8,000. I beg hon. Members to stay with me because the story gets better.
In 1961, in the golden days of Lord Stockton, violent crime rose to 15,000, and by 1965, under Lord Wilson, it went up to nearly 30,000. In 1970, under my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) —the old Pretender—the real cost of the hard stuff had fallen to £12·60 and violent crime against the person had risen to 41,000. By 1975, under the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and Lord Wilson, the cost of a bottle of whisky had fallen to £9·15, and violent crime soared to 71,000. By 1980, the first year of the "counter revolution," the cost of a bottle of Scotch had fallen to £7·70 and the figures for violent crime rose to 97,000. In 1985, whisky still cost £7·70 and violent crime rose to a record 119,000 offences.
I have left the Scots until last. If anything, they have been prepared to take an even more handsome advantage of a 60 per cent. fall in the real cost of whisky over the past 40 years— patriots to a man and woman.
I am no statistician. I know the old joke about statistics, drunks and lamp-posts. But there must be a relationship between drink—particularly the hard stuff—and, violent crime. Ask David Lloyd George or, if he cannot be found, John Grigg. Ask the Russians, the Swedes, the Icelanders or the Finns. Ask anyone. If the Government are really concerned to do something about the remorseless rise in crime—this applies equally to the Opposition—why not increase the tax on booze? I appeal to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker: was not sobriety a Victorian virtue?

Mr. Alex Carlile: During the first 55 minutes of the debate I was reminded of one of the favourite stories of my children—how the elephant got his trunk. But in the version to which we listened it was difficult to ascertain who was the elephant and who was the crocodile.
On the one hand, the Home Secretary claimed at least some measure of success in his criminal justice policy and the fight against crime which he said the Government were putting up. However, we heard ample evidence of the failure of that policy, in the waterfall of correct statistics that were produced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman).
On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Gorton claimed that the Labour party had the recipe for preventing crime; but that comes from a party whose credibility is perhaps not of the highest in this area. It comes from a party that is apparently prepared to palliate the consequences of criminal conviction for miners who were convicted of criminal offences—some of violence—against individuals. It comes from a party that in some areas is not prepared to allow often the most popular visitor—the uniformed police constable who comes as a crime prevention officer—into primary schools. It comes from a party that is not prepared to give the sort of encouragement to responsible neighbourhood watch schemes — and, of course, they need careful control—that it ought to be giving. It comes from a party that even in the city that includes the constituency of the right hon. Member for Gorton—and I saw a copy of this waved at the right hon. Gentleman at a fringe meeting at the Police Federation conference to which he referred — has been issuing a newsletter to the population which frequently contains clear attacks upon the police.
Both the Government and the Labour party seem to have lost sight of the fundamental priorities of which we should be speaking when we discuss the prevention of crime. I hope that the whole House will agree that the priorities of a successful criminal justice and crime prevention policy within a fair system of legal checks and balances are, first, to ensure that people can live in their homes without the fear of those homes being ravaged and looted by burglars and vandals and, secondly, to ensure that people, whether they be young or old, male or female, black or white, can walk the streets without the fear of their peace being disturbed. As we approach the conclusion of the debate, we should be able to show the public that politicians regard those as the fundamental priorities and that they are looking for solutions which will enable those priorities to succeed.
The Labour party motion is commendable so far as it goes. I particularly congratulate the right hon. Member for Gorton on his reference to victim support schemes. I agreed with him wholeheartedly when he criticised the


Government for talking humbug in pretending that they had given proper support to those schemes. But the right hon. Gentleman presented the House with a bizzare form of salesmanship of double glazing. In his society of closed-circuit televisions in every public place, of double-glazed houses so that it is harder to break windows, of smash-proof windows, of more caretakers, of strengthened car locks and more cars with alarms, what will the Labour party do to attack the underlying causes of crime?
It is not good enough and it will not satisfy the public to talk about a policy which tinkers around the superficialities of making homes and cars more secure without addressing the more fundamental realities of the crime problem and thus of crime prevention. The Labour party motion does not refer to that. The proposals made by the Labour party, albeit rather gift-wrapped by the right hon. Gentleman, but even in their unwrapped form, obviously go some way towards easing the burden on police officers, although it is questionable whether the programme can be delivered economically. But those proposals do nothing to improve the quality and nature of the attack which we must make on crime.
It is far more important for us to look at the structure, organisation, and accountability of the police to ascertain whether, through promoting and increasing the efficiency of our police forces, we can tackle the wave of crime of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke. We could swamp the country with police officers, but that would be unacceptable. We must strike a balance between increasing the numbers of police officers on the streets and overpolicing with consequent reduction of the quality of our police forces.
When we compare the sort of proposals made by the Labour party in its motion with what can be done through conventional policing and enhancing the efficiency of police forces, let us not forget the cost-effectiveness of the ordinary bobby. If all a police constable on the beat achieves in one year is to keep one person out of prison for one year, he has paid his salary and is cost-effective. The fight against crime is being lost because we are not making use of our police officers cost effectively and because we do not have sufficient police officers where they are needed. The Home Secretary shakes his head, but he will know that if the Thames Valley police area, which includes his constituency of Witney, were to have sufficient police officers to meet the average policing rate for England and Wales, its manpower would have to be increased by 25 per cent. The Home Secretary knows that fact, and he knows that the chief constable of the Thames Valley police believes that he should be given more officers in order to be able to mount proper squads of detectives and a full effort in the prevention of crime. It is impossible to understand the Home Secretary's reasons for depriving Thames Valley police of the manpower that it needs merely to be an average sized police force in proportion to the population of its enormous area.
The fight against crime is being lost both in the number of crimes and in the seriousness of the crimes committed. I shall not weary the House by repeating the statistics given by the right hon. Member for Gorton. At times some forces claim an improvement in clear-up rates, or at least evidence of improvement. The Home Secretary will be aware that in The Observer of 13 July 1986 certain allegations were made by PC Ronald Walker of the Kent

constabulary about the genuineness of those clear-up rates at least for part of Kent. He will be aware that that was not a new complaint but was already under investigation. I hope that he will agree that it is in the public interest, and certainly in the interests of the police, that genuine clear-up rates should always be available. I trust that he will take steps to ensure that guidelines are issued to police forces so that there is some uniformity in the way in which clear-up rates are prepared, and so that the public and the House are not misled into believing that the police are having greater success in clearing up crime than is the case. I refer in particular to the so-called system of write-offs, in which statements are prepared either by or purporting to be by people in prison convicted of crimes, who accept that they committed many other crimes.
In the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister there is yet another claim by the Government which suggests that the Conservative party has some sort of proprietary interest in law and order, and that it is the only party which is remotely capable of delivering law and order. We have already heard the statistics. It is particularly alarming to see a reference in the amendment to
the Government's commitment to pursuing an honest, vigorous and coherent policy in the fight against crime.
Does the Home Secretary believe that the 25 per cent. undermanning in the Thames Valley police is evidence of vigour?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. and learned Gentleman is falling into the increasingly prevalent trick, or trap, of describing as a cut or deprivation an increase which is somewhat smaller than those concerned would like. He will know that among the increases in police forces announced this year are a 73 post increase for Merseyside, a 50 post increase for Thames Valley, a 40 post increase for Norfolk, a 29 post increase for Warwickshire, and an 18 post increase for Devon and Cornwall. Those are the first results of the further increase, on top of the already massive increase, which we propose for the police forces of England and Wales outside London.

Mr. Carlile: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving those figures. He has reminded the House that for the Thames Valley police force, including his own constituency, 50 extra officers are being allowed this year; but he knows perfectly well that in order for Thames Valley to have the same ratio of police to population as the average police force in England and Wales, he should have given it not 50 but 750 extra police officers this year. I do not believe that the Home Secretary can satisfactorily deny that figure. It is indeed a deprivation. Thames Valley is entitled to the same rate of policing as any other part of the country. It is a deprivation of which there is evidence in other areas. Manchester was quoted earlier as another example.
Does the Home Secretary suggest that that kind of deprivation is evidence of a commitment to a vigorous policy of crime prevention? Is it really evidence of a coherent policy on crime prevention? Above all, is it honest for the Government to come to the House and say, "We are making all these efforts to prevent crime," but at the same time to hide in the statistics the fact that they are not giving the chief constables, who know how many police officers they need to have just an average sized force, that size of force? That is what is happening in many police forces, including Thames Valley.
The reality is that it does not need the right hon. Member for Gorton, the Home Secretary, me, or any other hon. Member to tell the Government what policing is needed. The good British public will tell the Government what policing is needed. Not even the wisdom of Lord Scarman is required to tell the Government what is needed to improve policing and prevent crime.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were to ask the public of this country what they believe is needed to improve crime prevention, they would give you the right answer, and it would be along these lines: that it is as important for a member of the public to know who is his local police officer as it is for him to know the name of his newsagent, doctor, milkman and chemist; that it is absolutely vital that there should be restored to the streets of this country something which many people of a generation older than I remember well—the local police officer from the local whole-time or part-time police station, according to the needs of his area; that it is absolutely necessary, not only in the inner cities but in the smaller towns and villages of this country, to ensure that the people can see their police in action — not whizzing past in panda cars but, wherever possible, policing on foot. That is not happening now.
In their amendment, the Government express support for the police. Of course the Government
expresses support for the police in their efforts to build closer links with the community".
Nobody could doubt the truth of those words in the Government's amendment. However, they do not give the support that the police need
in their efforts to build closer links with the community".
The result is that the morale of the public, as they face increasing crime, and the morale of the police, as they do their best to swim against the tide of increasing crime, is being sapped.
Connected with all this is the problem of the police authorities. Even those who are on police authorities barely know — indeed, some of them do not know—what are their rights and responsibilities. The system of police authorities is in chaos. I shall not dwell on the Stalker case because we have had plenty of opportunities to raise that issue, but the Manchester police authority quite plainly has not understood the responsibilities placed upon it under section 86 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in relation to Mr. Stalker. However, it is not surprising that it has not understood its responsibilities, because they are almost completely incomprehensible.
More than 20 years after the last Royal Commission on the police there is a great need to look once again—in a society that has changed so much and, in the context of policing, in a society that has changed so dramatically—at the role and structure of the police and police authorities. What has been said by the two Front Bench spokesmen in the debate is symptomatic of the fact that neither the Government nor the Labour party are going to the root causes of the malaise in the policy towards policing and, to an extent, in the police themselves. They are simply looking at ways of trying to treat the symptoms as quickly as possible, though superficially.
I ask the Home Secretary to institute a deep and far-ranging, though not a lingering, inquiry into the police along the lines of a Royal Commission. It is quite clear

from reading the Scarman report on the Brixton disturbances that there are many aspects of policing that we ought to look at from scratch.
I should like to make two other brief points to the Home Secretary, which I am sure he will accept are important. The first relates to our prisons. I was pleased to read that slopping out is to end in Wormwood Scrubs prison. I wish that we could say the same about many other prisons where slopping out still takes place. There is an abundance of evidence that savage or insanitary prisons do not prevent crime; they simply harden criminals. We have all heard and read about the Government's prison building programme. However, I ask the Home Secretary to look once again at that programme to ensure, even if he remains committed to building additional spaces into the prison system, which I believe is wrong, that there are far greater and far quicker improvements in local prisons, where many of the insanitary places are to be found, so that soon we may have at least a moderately civilised prison system.
The other specific point that I wish to mention to he Home Secretary, which I hope that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), will be able to deal with, relates to forensic science services. There was a time when, if the police went to the scene of a crime and wanted to call in forensic, as they called them, forensic came to the scene and took their samples, and within a couple of weeks, at the most, the basics of a forensic report were available for the investigating officers. Those reports could form, and often have formed, the basis of further interviews of suspects.
One cannot underestimate the importance of forensic evidence in the investigation of a crime. Sometimes it seems to be thought that it is important only in the presentation of the case to the court, but that is not correct. When murders are committed in England and Wales and when the police inevitably have to call for forensic evidence, the fact is that nowadays they are having to wait for weeks and weeks for reports, that forensic inquiries into murder cases and other serious crimes are being stockpiled at the laboratories and that there are insufficient Home Office forensic scientists of sufficient seniority and experience to deal with all the inquiries that are made of them by the police alone.
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) who believes that forensic science laboratories should be truly independent and fully available to both prosecution and defence. At the moment, those laboratories cannot begin to deal properly with prosecution, let alone defence. This is a scandal, because it is affecting detection rates and thus the prevention of crime. I hope that the Minister will give us some real evidence of the Government's determination to deal with the problem.

6 pm

Mr. Mike Woodcock: This debate is of necessity brief, and I shall conform by being as brief as I can in my speech. The debate is about putting people first, and all kinds of people are involved in the judicial process. I share with Opposition Members a great concern about the rise in crime. However, I believe that the Government have done a great deal to strengthen and support the police, to give at least some relief to the victims of crime and to make life more difficult for the offenders.


I hope that all of us are concerned about the rise in crime, and more concerned with solving the problem than in scoring political points.
The administration of justice involves more than the police, the victim and the offender. The police alone cannot prevent crime. They cannot observe every house, factory or shop, or even every motoring offence. They need the help of the public, and the success of the various home watch schemes demonstrates the potential pay-off. Justice requires the active co-operation of the public, and that demands a public that is ready and willing to help, not one that prefers to look the other way. A great deal more could be done to secure such co-operation.
I have five simple suggestions about what to do to secure more co-operation from the general public in the fight against crime. The first is the way in which we treat our civilian witnesses in the courts. Many hon. Members may have been witnesses in criminal or even civil cases and may have had experience of the treatment that we hand out to those who are giving their time to help the judicial process. Usually, witnesses are told to arrive at a court at 10 o'clock in the morning, although they may not be required by the court for hours. Often, there are no decent facilities in which to wait. They share over-crowded waiting rooms with offenders, chain smokers, and screaming children. There is nowhere comfortable to sit and coffee or tea is not made available. There is little information, even about when they will be required to give evidence to the court.
After they have waited for so long, cases are brought on largely for the convenience of the court and the professional lawyers, with little or no regard for the convenience of those who are giving their time in the fight against crime. If such witnesses are unfortunate enough to be there at lunchtime, they find that, while the prisoners go back to their cells and are given a free meal, the police retire to their staff canteens and the lawyers go back to their offices, they are left behind to fend for themselves, usually without the simplest form of guidance on where they can obtain a quick meal.
Eventually, when witnesses are called, many of them frightened, even petrified, by the experience of giving evidence, they face rigorous cross-examination, which often makes them feel that they are the criminals rather than those who are being tried. At the end, when they put in a relatively modest claim for expenses, which almost certainly will not cover their full costs, again they may be faced with cross-examination and made to feel that they are claiming something to which they are not entitled. When that ordeal is over, as Mr. Average Citizen walks out of the court, he says, "Never again. The next time I see a crime or suspicious circumstances, I shall look the other way." Witnesses in our judicial system need to feel that they are valued, well-treated and according society a privilege. All too often, the feelings engendered are the reverse.
Secondly, the public needs to have much more confidence in punishments fitting the crime. Too often offenders walk away from our courts laughing about the leniency of the sentences that are handed out. After 15 years as a magistrate, I can confidently say that this is not always the fault of the courts. Magistrates need much more freedom in selecting appropriate punishments. The short, sharp, shock treatment of detention centres for

young offenders needs to be used much earlier in the hierarchy of punishment. Community service, which is excellent in concept, needs much more rigorous supervision, and, if necessary, administration by police rather than the probation service, which is often more reluctant to apply proper standards of discipline. The Home Office may believe that community service orders are alternatives to custodial sentences, but the number of hours recommended and the supervision of these schemes mean that they are no effective alternative.
Probation orders need to be more tightly supervised by a probation service that recognises that, while help is the substance of probation orders, punishment is also important. We need to move much further towards offenders paying the full cost of their crimes, particularly with vandalism, with parents being responsible for the full cost of restitution for damage by children.
Thirdly, we need, as many people have suggested, independent investigation of serious complaints against the police. I have nothing but admiration for our excellent police service. It is deservedly the envy of the world, but where corruption is involved, the public needs to have confidence that complaints are being independently investigated. Justice must be seen to be done, and that is as true in the police force as it is in the wider community.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend accept that the independent Police Complaints Authority is already able to oversee any investigation of any crime alleged against any police officer, and must be satisfied that the investigation is being conducted properly or else it can order another one?

Mr. Woodcock: I understand that that is the case. However, my hon. Friend knows that that process is not seen to be independent by members of the public. There is a great deal of support within the police force for an independent investigation system.

Mr. Alex Carlile: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Police Federation — which I thought that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds represented in the House —is in favour of his views?

Mr. Woodcock: I was not aware of that fact, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) will make himself aware of that fact, if he was not already so aware. However, time is short and I do not want this to turn into a debate about the pros and cons of the investigation of police complaints.
My fourth point is that I believe that there should be a separation of police traffic duties from other duties. Nothing alienates the public more from the police than their involvement in minor traffic offences and nothing alienates the public from the courts more than the perceived disparity in fines that are handed out for minor motoring offences and those handed out for what the public perceives as the much more serious offences of dishonesty, violence and vandalism. I do not know how that division could be brought about, but the Home Secretary should examine this carefully, because it would greatly raise the standing of the police in the eyes of the public.
Fifthly, there is a need for much better feedback from the police to those assisting and those reporting crime. Too often offences are reported by the public, who gain the impression, probably wrongly, that the police are not


interested, particularly in cases of neighbourhood disputes, vandalism and nuisance. When the police take further action, there is a lack of information on what action has been taken. A short letter to those who report crimes, after the event, telling them the outcome of the investigations and thanking them for their help would be a simple matter of good public relations.
Our judicial system is the envy of the world. Our police force is second to none. But the whole judicial process demands the public's active co-operation. Much more must be done to assure the public that their help is needed and valued, and, perhaps even more importantly, that, if they give it, they will be treated with the consideration and respect that is due to them.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It may help the House if I say that the first Front-Bench speaker hopes to catch my eye at 6.40 pm.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I happened to believe that the Home Secretary, the Minister of State and senior officials at the Home Office take the difficult problems of the Birmingham six extremely seriously and conscientiously. Can they say when they hope to give any response to Chris Mullin's well thought out case?
I and others have been asking questions about the forensic side of that story and about Dr. Frank Skuse. There is also the basic question whether the defence should have access to forensic science advice and expertise. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in asking for a comment, particularly in the light of the constructive proposals put forward by Dr. Brian Caddy and the University of Strathclyde for a centre in Glasgow that would meet some of these requirements. If no response is made during questions to the Home Office, when is there likely to be one?
Some of us would be interested to hear the Home Office's view not only on the costs of the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) but on the many savings that could result if some of them were put into practice. We often forget that the cost of crime is simply enormous.
I turn to a case that involved the knowing waste of police time. Detective Superintendent Ron Hardy and Detective Sergeant Mike Ashdown were dispatched to the West Indies to try to find out about the log book of HMS Conqueror at the time of the Ponting trial. For the sake of conciseness, I refer to the Official Report for 24 October 1985. I asked the Attorney-General:
what was the cost of Detective Superintendent Hardy's visit to the West Indies with a colleague on the investigation relating to the loss of HMS Conqueror's log book." — [Official Report, 24 October 1985; Vol. 84, c. 191.]
The Solicitor-General replied that it was £6,940·82. That might have been justified if the Government had not known full well that the man whom they were investigating had left the Navy in July 1982, and if the then Secretary of State for Defence had not said, in reply to the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Sir R. Gower):
I regret to announce that our inquiries so far have failed to locate the missing logs or to identify a proven explanation for their disappearance. It is clear that the logs were compiled and probably remained on board the submarine until October or November 1982."—[Official Report, 30 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 593.]

The logs were all bound so they could not possibly have been missing until September 1982 at the very earliest. I happen to believe that no log went missing from that submarine, but the point is that the Ministry of Defence knew that the man whom it was investigating, the supplies officer of HMS Conqueror, Lieutenant Mahendra Sethia, had left the Navy in July 1982. In September 1982 he was known to be sailing round the coast of Europe in a yacht. Will the Home Office and those responsible for the police find out who authorised such a visit? Those policemen were knowingly sent on a wild-goose chase. I shall not detain the House by saying why the Government, or certain Ministers, wanted that. I merely want to know on what authority Detective Superintendent Hardy and Detective Sergeant Mike Ashdown went to the West Indies. Was it direct ministerial authority?
My last point will take a little longer. In any discussion of the fight against crime it is common ground that Ministers must be seen to be beyond reproach. Charges have been made against the Attorney-General, the Government chief Law Officer, that he knew that the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) had authorised the leak of a letter from the Solicitor-General even before the inquiry had been formally set up. I shall quote from "The Attorney General, Politics and the Public Interest" by Professor John Edwards. Professor Edwards said:
The Attorney General, whoever he may be, is not only the legal adviser to the Crown and to the government. He is also a servant of this House. It is, from time to time, his duty to advise the House on legal matters—a duty going beyond his responsibility to this government and the Crown".
The charges are said to emanate from a Select Committee. I regard the Attorney-General as an honourable man who has given truthful answers. In fairness to him, I should be interested to know why the Select Committee did riot call him if it contemplated making such accusations—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going into details that have nothing to do with the motion before us.

Mr. Dalyell: The problem is that such charges or slurs cannot be allowed to rest in limbo when a senior Minister is involved. I say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That may be so, but this is not the time for going into details on the work of the Select Committee or on the charges that may have been made.

Mr. Dalyell: In that case, I have a question about the circumstances in which indemnity is granted. I speak as the Member of Parliament who, rightly or wrongly, named Collette Bowe in the House. The fact is that indemnity was given before 16 January. It may have been given on 13, 14 or 15 January, but it was certainly before 16 January. On 30 January the Attorney-General said:
On 22 January, when I was given a summary shortly before receiving the report of the inquiry carried out by the head of the Civil Service." — [Official Report, 30 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 586.]
That is when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was first informed of the direct involvement of the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. and learned Member for Richmond, Yorks.
In what circumstances does an Attorney-General give indemnity to civil servants, however senior, when Ministers, however exhalted, are involved? It seems


extraordinary that indemnity was given by a senior Minister when he apparently did not know the details of the circumstances in which he gave it. Yet the right hon. and learned Gentleman told the House that it was not until 22 January that he knew the full circumstances. I happen to think that when I questioned the Attorney-General last Monday about whether he was consulted about the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Once again the hon. Gentleman is going into details that are not relevant to the motion about crime which is before us. He can indulge in generalities, but he should not go into such detail.

Mr. Dalyell: This is part of the trouble. When a Member of Parliament wants to ask a senior Law Officer to make a statement to the House that involves his honour, he had better be very clear about the details before doing so. Consequently, I do not apologise for going into the details. In the light of all this, there is a solemn obligation on the Attorney-General to give his side of the story in a statement before we go into recess. I have never meant anything more than that which I have just said. I do not doubt that there is a side to the story that he can give. I do not think that he was consulted, and referring to last Monday's question—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman persists in pursuing the detail. There are ample opportunities in the House for raising details at Question Time and so on, but this is not the occasion for the hon. Gentleman to pursue this matter.

Mr. Dalyell: I shall have opportunities, and I look forward to making use of them.

Mr. John Wheeler: The hon. Baronet and Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will appreciate that I cannot follow his comments but I shall speak about the Opposition motion and the Government amendment. When I first read the Opposition motion I was much encouraged because there seemed to be in all parts of the House a genuine commitment towards the objective of crime prevention.
The Opposition motion refers to a crime prevention programme, crime prevention grants, a safe estates programme and victim support schemes. The Government are already pursuing these objectives. Since the 1970s the potential for crime prevention has become increasingly apparent, especially to the Home Office, and in 1983 my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Brittan) set up the crime prevention unit which is enthusiastically supported by my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary.
The contribution towards crime prevention in various and necessary forms has been extensive. The Department of the Environment is making £50 million available, much of it through the run-down and priority estates programme. The Manpower Services Commission is making £42 million available for various initiatives in the field of crime prevention measures. That is welcome and important because, as the House knows, 95 per cent. of crime relates to property and is controllable, if not preventable, by the interaction of local authorities, the community and the police working together.
The plausibility of the Opposition comes into question when one examines the activities of the Labour party

outside the House. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has left the Chamber. He does not want to hear this or to answer the accusations that I shall make. It is extraordinary that his own local authority in the city of Manchester, which is not responsible for the police, should be so against the police service that it spends large sums of ratepayers' money on anti-police campaigns. It is against the creation of police neighbourhood watch schemes that are designed to prevent crime. Why is it that in recent years the Labour party in London has spent million of pounds on antipolice propaganda? Why do many of the London boroughs still spend large sums of money on the publication of literature against the police and do not encourage them to police council estates or to visit local authority schools?
If the Opposition motion is to have any credibility, the Opposition must address themselves to those points. They cannot escape their responsibilities, and equally if they want to see, as they suggest in their motion, an easement of pressure on the police so that they can be deployed to help the community they should say to their own supporters that the resources of the police should not have to be used at places like Wapping and should not have had to be used during the miners' dispute or today in demonstrations. The Opposition cannot have it both ways and those points must be considered in some detail and answered.
The Government have a remarkable record on the prevention of crime. That record is being sustained and increasingly the fruits are being seen. Because of the work done by and through the Department of the Environment and by many local authorities, we have seen a transformation in some of our inner city estates. In my own city of Westminster the local housing department has removed walkways and has created blocks of flats as individual homes. It has provided gardens and has cut off blocks of flats from the general neighbourhood. As a result, it is able to report a dramatic downturn in property crime such as residential burglaries. In some instances crime has been eliminated. If it can be done in the city of Westminster and elsewhere in London through the priority estate schemes, some of them in Labour boroughs, that clearly must be the way forward. Allied to that is the need to ensure that the local authority properly manages its estate. It must collect the rents and not allow arrears to accumulate, giving the impression that lawlessness is acceptable. The money must be collected so that there can be a proper maintenance and caretaker service. Where local authorities do that there is a marked downturn in crime and that benefits the community. If the Opposition believe in crime prevention, they must say to the local authorities that are Labour-controlled that this is the way forward.
The House will recall that in the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the centuries-old priority for fines to be paid by the courts to the Crown in the first instance was reversed and priority was placed upon the money collected from offenders being used in favour of victims through orders that were given absolute priority. In that instance the Government reversed the centuries-old tradition and they have also supported the National Association of Victims Support Schemes with fairly generous funding. We would all like to see more being done, but we do not want to see another form of bureaucracy being created. I urge upon my right hon. Friend the need to look at the way in which


the head office of the association makes its disbursements to ensure that we do not promote bureaucracy but provide adequate funding to ensure that in the key inner city areas such schemes can be created.
I also welcome the news about the neighbourhood watch schemes. They are an undoubted success story and are to be further encouraged by the availability of a neighbourhood watch newspaper. That must be good news.
Autocrime makes up some 30 per cent. of all crime in Britain. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders is working with the Home Office to improve the design of motor vehicles to design out crime and that must be the way forward, just as the steering column lock that was introduced in the 1960s contributed substantially to the reduction in autocrime. It is via such strategies that we shall tackle that great block of crime.
I find it curious that in their statements the Opposition should ignore their own commitment to repeal the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. We ought to know what the Opposition will replace it with because that Act also provides for crime prevention and sets out the police powers throughout England and Wales. What is to be done about the prevention of terrorism if the Opposition succeed in their ambition to repeal the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984? That Act makes a major contribution to the prevention of crime of serious violence.
All those questions remain to be answered and if the Opposition motion is to be credible, they will have to deal with those points, I hope when their spokesman winds up. The way forward is through the crime prevention strategies of the Government and I have no hesitation in supporting the Government amendment.

Mr. Chris Smith: I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate, but I am acutely conscious of the importance of the subject and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate.
Earlier this year, the London borough of Islington carried out a comprehensive study of about 2,000 households in its area. The results were published in preliminary form some months ago and are due to be published next month as a book, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has provided a preface.
The results of that survey demonstrate clearly how important crime and the fear of crime are to many thousands of people in my constituency. They showed, for example, that about 70 per cent. of the population of my constituency regard crime as a problem second only in the scale of problems to unemployment — 87 per cent. of people said that unemployment was the worst problem. That shows how seriously people take the problem of crime in their areas.
Here I must take issue with the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who criticised the Labour party and said that we would treat the symptoms, not the underlying causes. I listened carefully to his speech to see whether it contained anything about the underlying causes, and of course it did not. He mentioned only one of the symptoms—the different forms of policing. I shall return to that in a moment, because it is an important point. It ill-behoves him to criticise either of the two other

parties which participated in this debate for not addressing the underlying causes when he put forward nothing that would tackle the underlying causes of crime and the genuine fear of crime among millions of people.
One answer to the problem of crime is good policing. Indeed, it is the only answer that the Government give. But the police must have, above all, the confidence of the community that they serve because that is the key to effective policing. In my constituency, the tenants on many estates meet their neighbourhood police officers arid members and officers of the local authority on a close arid regular basis to work out how their areas should be policed and what should happen to their estates to improve policing in the area.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) criticised Labour-controlled local authorities. I would have accepted that criticism readily had he, in the same breath, praised Labour-controlled local authorities such as the one that I represent, which has sat down with the police, wished to work closely with the police, invited the police on to the council estates and engineered the close co-operation that can lead to good policing. If that credit is given, perhaps we can have a more effective and constructive dialogue about the way in which local authorities and communities interact with the police in their areas.
However, when discussing crime, we must talk about much more than policing. Even more important than policing, which tries to deter and to catch criminals after the event, is crime prevention. During the past seven years, the Government have let the country down badly on crime prevention. No endless series of seminars at 10 Downing street will make up for the fact that, through the withdrawal of rate support grant, the operation of rate capping and the savage reductions in housing expenditure which the Government have inflicted on Britain, the ability of local authorities and of the agencies in the areas where crime prevention is desperately needed to carry out proper, full crime prevention measures has been destroyed.
The hon. Member for Westminster, North mentioned the improvements on some estates in his area. Of course, some local authorities of all political colours have made valiant efforts to improve conditions, including the provision of better lighting, the removal of dark corners and better security on the estates. But most local authorities have been hampered by the withdrawal of funds by the Government. During the past seven years, the Government have increased public expenditure on the forces of control after the event—the police, the judicial system and the prisons—by about 30 per cent. in real terms. In the same period, they reduced expenditure on housing by 70 per cent. in real terms. The Government's priorities are completely wrong.
To tackle the root causes of the crime wave which so many people fear and have experienced will mean tackling the deprivation, poverty and unemployment that are the generating forces behind the increase in crime and lawlessness. There is no evidence that the Government will provide constructive measures to tackle those root causes, and we shall not get them from the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the Liberal party either.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The hyperbole, exaggeration, malice and sheer abuse from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) was nothing new.


It was vintage right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton. What is new is the Labour party's new-found concern for law and order.
When in power, the Labour party presided over the loss of 9,000 policemen, the lowering of morale to the stage where there was almost a police strike, and the withdrawal of police officers from the beat. In opposition, they have advocated political interference with policing, denigrated the police to an enormous extent, especially in London, voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act, which probably did more than anything to stop the summer bombing campaign of the IRA, voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, which has equipped the police with more sensible powers to fight crime, and voted against the Public Order Bill, which will protect the elderly and other vulnerable people, whom they always say they want to protect, from violence in the street. If one adds to that their demonstrations against the rate-capping legislation, the miners' strike and the occasional utterances in favour of terrorists from some representatives of the Labour party, the public will come to the conclusion that the speech of the right hon. Member for Gorton was nothing but a pathetic joke.
What really rattles the Labour party is the fact that the Government have done so much about crime. Hardly a day goes by without some constructive action being taken. They include 14,000 more policemen; more civilian staff; a 30 per cent. increase in police resources; the implementation of most of the Scarman recommendations; the independent Police Complaints Authority; the overhaul of police training; more deterrent sentences for firearms offences, drugs traffickers, murderers of police and prison officers, child murderers and sexual offenders; the wider armoury for magistrates' courts to deal with juvenile offenders; the biggest prison building programme in history, with three new prisons built and 15 to go; the major refurbishment of 100 other prisons; the Police and Criminal Evidence Act; the Public Order Bill; the Prevention of Terrorism Act; and the subject of this debate — crime prevention — where the Government have involved the public with great success and where they ha' e taken steps to help victims of crime, which are long overdue, with victim support schemes and extended compensation.
To say that the Government have not taken positive and effective measures against crime is nonsense. But the fact is that crime is still growing and we must face that unpleasant fact. Although there has been a most welcome reduction in some areas, such as burglary, a lot more needs to be done. The fight against crime is not being lost but it is being won too slowly. It would be won more quickly if our trials were more efficient and if we had tape-recorded interviews. What has happened to that proposal?
But there is one step which, more quickly than any other, would change the climate of crime, particularly violent crime, a step which would meet with the support of the overwhelming majority of the nation — the restoration of capital punishment. When will the Government take that important, urgent and long overdue step?

Mr. Clive Soley: The Government's amendment to the Labour party's motion is incredible.

For a start, they now refer to an "honest policy". But what did they have before the Home Secretary did an about-turn on crime — a dishonest policy? Is that what the previous Home Secretary had? The Government's policy is supposed to be well-funded, "vigorous and coherent". It is neither. What we have had from the Government is a rapid about-turn when the present Home Secretary took over. That was done in a fit of desperation because the Government knew that they were losing the argument, and losing it badly. The tragedy is that they are continuing to lose it because the Government's underlying social and economic policies are guaranteed to make a difficult situation far worse.
The Home Secretary said that crime has been going up for some 30 years. The Labour party, inside and outside the House, has agreed that there is a problem for any Government of any political colour in Britain precisely because of structural changes, particularly in the inner city areas. What the Government did which was so bad and counter-productive was to rip off the sticking plaster of public expenditure, to create long-term mass youth unemployment and to introduce a series of other policies, some of which were referred to a few moments ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and many of which were referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), of general cuts in local authority expenditure which have such a profound effect on crime prevention.
I am even more amazed at the Liberal party's amendment. It calls upon the Government to set up a committee to look into the functioning and structure of the police. At last, the Liberal party is acknowledging that something is wrong with policing in Britain, but it does not have the courage to come forward and say what needs to be done. The Labour party has been saying that for some years and some years ago it was not very popular. Now we know that a majority of British people support better police accountability. We know that a majority of people, including the Police Federation, which did an about-turn, support an independent police complaints system. We have won two of the most crucial arguments.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), unusually for him, said the Labour party would not produce resources, but what do we read in the Liberal amendment? The Liberal party will provide immediately
the resources necessary for an effective nationwide system of community based policing.
If a party's second task in government is to decide who will lead it, it will need a good system of community policing before trying to sort that out.
What have the Government done that has been such a failure? They talk about crime prevention. The cuts to the housing programme, pinpointed so specifically by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, are crucial. If renovation, repair and rebuild are cut out, not only can the changing population of the inner cities not be dealt with, but the older properties, which abound in our inner cities because so many of them were built in the last century, are allowed to deteriorate. That makes it easier for burglars to enter them and for them to become rundown and vandalised. Because of the Government cuts, many local authorities have had to remove people such as caretakers, public toilet attendants, park keepers and


people in public transport, who not only help to prevent crime by their presence but also help to clear up the effects of vandalism and crime. The Government have cut the lot.
The Labour party is in favour of putting cameras, security locks and so on on doors, but if we only do that, as we have pointed out on many occasions, we simply create the drawbridge behind which people retreat into their own houses and take no notice of what goes on outside because there is fear outside. Those areas with a particularly high and frightening level of crime, particularly some of our high-rise blocks, need resident caretakers. That is the sort of sophisticated structure for which we are looking.
Look at what the Government have done to education. Nursery education, one o'clock clubs, polytechnics, universities and training colleges have all been cut by the Government. It is now much more difficult to enter those education structures than it was before. Now that we have long-term youth unemployment it is impossible to get those young unemployed people the places that they need.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: rose—

Mr. Soley: No, I am sorry, I am not giving way at this time. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had been here throughout the debate he would know that we have been short of time and I want to give the Minister time to reply. He can deal with the matter if he wishes. However, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was about to say that there have not been cuts in education, we know that there have, right the way down the line, and that has affected everything from nursery education through to the polytechnics and the universities. Cuts have also had an effect on leisure and recreation generally.
If we want to see what the Government have done to make the crime situation worse, we can take no better example than the increase in the board and lodging allowance. In doing that, the Government have increased homelessness among young people. There is a direct link between crime and homelessness, alcohol abuse and homelessness and drug abuse and homelessness. Yet the Government have introduced a board and lodging scheme which is guaranteed to make homelessness worse. In doing so, they will push more young people into crime, drug addiction and alcohol abuse.
The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) talked about the problem of alcohol abuse. Again, the Government have no coherent policy on alcohol or drug abuse. They have no policy on fraud either for that matter, yet the impact of fraud on Britain is terrifying. The double standards of the Government can be seen by looking at the rates of imprisonment for people caught fiddling their social security claims and those people caught fiddling their income tax. There is a terrible discrepancy in the amount of money involved and between those who go to prison and those who do not.
We have heard nothing from the Government about how, in six short years, they have managed to turn the British police force, once the pride of the world, into a semi-paramilitary police force. Conservative Members talk about Wapping, but no other post-war Government would have allowed Rupert Murdoch to go on being protected by the police at the expense of the ratepayer while no effort was made to force him to negotiate. Indeed, no other Government would have looked happily on the

way that he has turned his monopoly powers in the press into such an important and powerful base at the same time as being an overseas citizen.
One of the Labour party's fundamental criticisms—indeed it is one that is growing in the police force—is that the Government, more than any other, have tried to use the police as though they were their own private army. They have done that in industrial relations and the inner cities, where they hope the police will cope with the consequences of their social and economic policies.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Soley: What about the training of police officers? We know from the Metropolitan police commissioner's report that training has suffered. People have been taken off training courses concerned with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, for which, in some cases, police are given only one or two days' training, yet the Labour party is recommending a minimum of six months' training as soon as possible, eventually aiming for much longer—I hope two years.
The Government lack a policy on community policing. They will often say how marvellous community policing is, but what resources do they put into it? What are the incentives for a young officer to stay on as a community police officer? They are almost non-existent. If a police officer wants to improve his income or be promoted he must move out into car driving, to the courts, the police station or even the House of Commons. Despite that, the Government say that community policing is all-important. Let us see the colour of their money.
What about the lack of a strong inspectorate? We read the other week allegations concerning the clear-up rates in Kent. Anyone involved in the legal system knows what happens and yet we do not have an independent and strong police inspectorate to deal with it.
It is no good the Government saying that we must back the police because the public are worried, not because of one bad apple in the barrel, but because an officer who chooses to do something about what is happening cannot use the system without being made vulnerable. That has happened in the Kent constabulary and elsewhere. Until we have a strong police inspectorate, backed by a strong ombudsman, there will be trouble.
An effective system of accountability completes the package. The Government claim that neighbourhood watch, property marking and victim support are all that is needed. I am not against those schemes, but the Government know that neighbourhood watch does not work well in high crime areas. It can help to build up the community a little, but that can be successful only in conjunction with all the other schemes. Until the Government reverse their social and economic policies it will not be sufficient to wheel out a Home Secretary to deal with the faults of the previous Home Secretary.
The Government must reverse their policies and put resources into our inner cities and crime prevention. They must introduce proper police accountability, police training and an independent Police Complaints Authority. Then we might begin to reverse the damage that the Government have done to the fabric of our society.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) exceeded


the time agreed, but I thought it worthwhile for the House to hear the threadbare nature of the Opposition's case. The hon. Gentleman wants more accountability, a different Police Complaints Authority, more control over the police, more bureaucracy and less effort for those really concerned. The Opposition have the temerity to talk about putting the people first. They do not want to put people first, but they do want political control over the police. Let no one be under any illusion about that.
We were grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) for his modest sermon. I assure him that we are worried about the connection between alcohol and crime. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already taken an initiative and the issue is being examined by one of the working groups that we have set up in the crime prevention standing conference.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) referred to the forensic science service, as did the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I accept that the forensic science service is under great stress because of the demands upon it. There are staff vacancies. I have visited some forensic science establishments to see what might be done. Our intention is to provide the service required and to maintain the high standards of skill for which it has a high reputation.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned other matters in connection with correspondence with my right hon. Friend. The Home Secretary has replied to him today about the forensic science service. He will also respond to the hon. Gentleman's queries about the Birmingham six. That is a complicated issue, which might require more evaluation than is involved in a mere letter sent within such a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Woodcock) has apologised because he has to be elsewhere at this time. He mentioned court buildings and facilities for witnesses. I shall write to him. I recognise that such issues pose major problems in handling court work sensitively and sensibly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Mr. Wheeler) presented a robust view of crime prevention and of the wide range of activities in which we are engaged.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) referred to the importance of the consultative groups. Today I met Islington's consultative group and had an interesting exchange of views. I gave it substantial support for its work. With full police agreement it has set out on a range of issues which will be wholly beneficial to the community.
I cannot deal with all the issues in the few minutes remaining to me. I must deal with the main thrust of the Opposition case. They claim that the Government have failed to take any initiative to improve the climate in which crime and the fear of crime can be dealt with. This Government have virtually revolutionised the attitude towards crime prevention. Crime prevention as a policy did not exist when we came to office.
As my hon. Friends the Members for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) and for Westminster, North reminded the House, this Government set up the crime prevention unit and in a relatively short period a massive range of initiatives have been taken, which even the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) should understand. We have established an evaluation of

crime patterns. We have done research into individual criminal activity, into the background of crime and into particular aspects of criminal activity such as shop crime, theft and autocrime. We have changed the standing committee on crime prevention to a standing conference. Working groups are examining the whole range of criminal activity to cover autocrime, licensed premises, crimes of violence, crime on transport and so on. We have agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers that it should set up a sub-committee on crime prevention to be chaired by the current president, Sir Stanley Bailey. The secretary will be James Anderton, the chief constable of Greater Manchester.
I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the strong input from Greater Manchester in our crime prevention initiatives. They will certainly help to offset the deleterious activities of the right hon. Gentleman's own police committee which seems to do little else but provide outrageous documentation and to undermine crime prevention.
Two national seminars have taken place at No. 10 Downing street, the first of which was run by the Prime Minister and the second of which was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. A range of agencies participated. This has already resulted in a number of new initiatives which will significantly affect criminal activity.

Mr. Kaufman: Such as?

Mr. Shaw: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman saying that. I am thinking of the decision by the British motor industry to accept a new standard for car security, the decision by the insurance industry to agree to examine reduced premiums and the decision by local authorities to take a greater interest in the provision of security systems in housing estates. I accept that Councillor Layden of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities made a contribution and we shall examine his proposition with care in the hope that we can do something akin to it.
Most crime prevention activities do not involve local authorities spending large amounts. I visited a large block of flats at Swansea recently. Caretakers have been brought back at a cost to the tenants of 40p per week, which the tenants pay willingly so that their homes are better protected and kept in better order. The environment of that estate in Swansea is an eloquent testimony to what can be done.
I visited the crime prevention project at Wellingborough. A major improvement has been made to the town centre car park there by employing staff to look after it, at a charge. We need such projects so that crime prevention activities are rooted in the community and people are helped to help themselves. We believe in putting people first.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 286.

Division No. 268]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Bagier, Gordon A. T.


Alton, David
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)


Anderson, Donald
Barnett, Guy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Barron, Kevin


Ashdown, Paddy
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Beith, A. J.


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony






Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Home Robertson, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Hoyle, Douglas


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Blair, Anthony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Kennedy, Charles


Caborn, Richard
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lambie, David


Campbell, Ian
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leadbitter, Ted


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Leighton, Ronald


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cartwright, John
Litherland, Robert


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clarke, Thomas
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clay, Robert
Loyden, Edward


Clelland, David Gordon
McCartney, Hugh


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Coleman, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Conlan, Bernard
McTaggart, Robert


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Martin, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meacher, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Michie, William


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Mikardo, Ian


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Deakins, Eric
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dewar, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dixon, Donald
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dobson, Frank
Nellist, David


Dormand, Jack
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Douglas, Dick
O'Brien, William


Dubs, Alfred
O'Neill, Martin


Duffy, A. E. P.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Park, George


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Pendry, Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Pike, Peter


Ewing, Harry
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fatchett, Derek
Prescott, John


Faulds, Andrew
Radice, Giles


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Randall, Stuart


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Raynsford, Nick


Fisher, Mark
Redmond, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foster, Derek
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robertson, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rogers, Allan


Freud, Clement
Rooker, J. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


George, Bruce
Rowlands, Ted


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Gould, Bryan
Sheerman, Barry


Gourlay, Harry
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hancock, Michael
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hardy, Peter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Skinner, Dennis


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Snape, Peter


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Soley, Clive


Heffer, Eric S.
Spearing, Nigel


Hogg, N. (Cnauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)





Strang, Gavin
Wigley, Dafydd


Straw, Jack
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Wilson, Gordon


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Winnick, David


Tinn, James
Woodall, Alec


Torney, Tom
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Michael
Mr. Chris Smith and


White, James
Mr. John McWilliam.


NOES


Adley, Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Aitken, Jonathan
Dunn, Robert


Alexander, Richard
Durant, Tony


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Ashby, David
Eggar, Tim


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Emery, Sir Peter


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Evennett, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Farr, Sir John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Anthony


Batiste, Spencer
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fletcher, Alexander


Bellingham, Henry
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, John
Gale, Roger


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gower, Sir Raymond


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Greenway, Harry


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Brinton, Tim
Grist, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Ground, Patrick


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Grylls, Michael


Bruinvels, Peter
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hampson, Dr Keith


Buck, Sir Antony
Hannam, John


Budgen, Nick
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Bulmer, Esmond
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Henderson, Barry


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Hickmet, Richard


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James


Chope, Christopher
Hirst, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Holt, Richard


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Cockeram, Eric
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Coombs, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cope, John
Hunter, Andrew


Corrie, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Couchman, James
Irving, Charles


Cranborne, Viscount
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Critchley, Julian
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Crouch, David
Key, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Lawler, Geoffrey






Lawrence, Ivan
Osborn, Sir John


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ottaway, Richard


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lester, Jim
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lightbown, David
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lilley, Peter
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Pawsey, James


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pollock, Alexander


Lord, Michael
Porter, Barry


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Portillo, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Powell, William (Corby)


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Powley, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Price, Sir David


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Maclean, David John
Raffan, Keith


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Renton, Tim


Major, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Maples, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Mates, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mather, Carol
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mellor, David
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Merchant, Piers
Rost, Peter


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Rowe, Andrew


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Ryder, Richard


Miscampbell, Norman
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Moate, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Monro, Sir Hector
Sayeed, Jonathan


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Moynihan, Hon C.
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Mudd, David
Shersby, Michael


Murphy, Christopher
Silvester, Fred


Neale, Gerrard
Sims, Roger


Nelson, Anthony
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Neubert, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Newton, Tony
Speed, Keith


Nicholls, Patrick
Speller, Tony


Norris, Steven
Spencer, Derek


Onslow, Cranley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Squire, Robin





Stanbrook, Ivor
Walden, George


Steen, Anthony
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stern, Michael
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Ward, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Warren, Kenneth


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Watson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitfield, John


Thorne, Neil (Word S)
Wiggin, Jerry


Thornton, Malcolm
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Nicholas


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Trippier, David
Woodcock, Michael


Trotter, Neville
Yeo, Tim


Twinn, Dr Ian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


van Straubenzee, Sir W.
Younger, Rt Hon George


Vaughan, Sir Gerard



Viggers, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. Gerald Malone and


Waldegrave, Hon William
Mr. Francis Maude.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House reaffirms its support for the Government's commitment to pursuing an honest, vigorous and coherent policy in the fight against crime; welcomes the additional resources the Government has devoted to law and order, the success of Government backed crime prevention initiatives such as Neighbourhood Watch and property marking schemes, the encouragement given to local crime prevention initiatives, and the development of victim support schemes; expresses support for the police in their efforts to build closer links with the community; and believes everybody has a responsibility to participate in the fight against crime.

Gas Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move,

That the Order [17th February] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments
1. — (1) The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, subject to the provisions of the Order [I7th February], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall he made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House cloth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3.— (1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—


(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;

(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
4. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

We have debated the Gas Bill at considerable length on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and it has been debated in another place as well. Both Houses have spent about 260 hours debating the Bill. In this place we debated 370 amendments, and some 630 amendments were considered in another place. Altogether, about 1,000 amendments have been debated. Tonight we have 32 amendments before us from another place, the majority of which are of a drafting or technical nature. The few that are of substance are very much in response to views that have been expressed in the House and in another place. I am glad that the Government have been able to respond.

In these circumstances, I believe that the terms of the motion should be adequate for our consideration of the Lords amendments.

Mr. Stan Orme: First, I inform the House that, because of the shortage of time, we shall not divide the House when the Question is put on the motion. None the less, we think that the provision of time is outrageously short, especially when we bear in mind the debates that have taken place in another place.
I have been informed that the Government, according to the Denning amendment, would have to inform trade unions of the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer and that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employees) Regulations 1981 provide that the Government have to disclose how many men would be redundant and what alternative work would be obtained for them. That issue was debated in another place last Thursday. This afternoon the Leader of the House told us that the Dockyard Services Bill, which is affected by the Denning amendment and which the Government were unable to proceed with last Friday, will be introduced on Wednesday. I understand that negotiations are still taking place with Lord Denning. We claim that there is a n analogy with the Gas Bill.
I have been informed by the trade unions that in the light of a statement made last week in another place the


British Gas Corporation has done all that it can to comply with the TUPE '81 regulations. The trade unions, however, are of the opinion that there has not been adequate or sufficient consultation about the intended transfer and that all the information required by the regulations to be made available has not been supplied. This includes the legal, economic and social implications of the transfer for all affected employees.
I understand that the trade unions are prepared to take any necessary legal action to protect the rights which the regulations give to their members who are employed by the British Gas Corporation. The Secretary of State laughs, but if the issue goes to court he might end up laughing on the other side of his face. I ask the Minister of State to explain whether the issue that I have outlined will have an effect on the Bill and will delay the sale of the shares of British Gas. The House is entitled to an answer to an extremely important question which has arisen during the passage of the Bill in another place. I ask the Minister to respond.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall respond to the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I think that he is making a great deal out of very little. Last week in another place it was explained that the policy of British Gas from the outset has been to comply with all the requirements of the regulations to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Such are management-employee relations within British Gas that, as was made clear last week, the corporation has taken great care, which it always does, to go beyond merely fulfilling the letter of the obligations that it has to its employees. British Gas has already done all that it can do to comply with the requirements set out in the regulations and to inform and consult the trade unions.
There is one exception, to which reference was made last week, and that is the actual date of transfer from the corporation to the plc. Once the Bill becomes law and the Government are able to announce the timetable leading up to privatisation and the sale of shares, British Gas will immediately inform the unions of the transfer date. I hope that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) realises that British Gas has fully informed and consulted the trade unions. In addition, my right hon. Friend and I have always made ourselves available during the passage of the Bill to discuss the matter with the trade unions. We had two meetings with the Gas Unions Against Retail Denationalisation organisation that represents the unions involved in British Gas. At the end of both those meetings, my right hon. Friend invited representatives of the organisation to refer to him at any time any matter for clarification.
My right hon. Friend and I also had a meeting with the energy committee of the TUC. My right hon. Friend replied in detail to a submission that it put to us on a number of points. I have amplified the consultations that Ministers have had with the unions concerned. I assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that the unions have been fully informed and consulted at all stages.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order [17th February] be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments
1. — (1) The proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and,

subject to the provisions of the Order [17th February], those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the Amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment, as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or as the case may be, in their Amendment, as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to each Amendment designated by Mr. Speaker which has not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Amendment; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments
3. —(1) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of the proceedings.
(2) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—


(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental
4. — (1) In this paragraph 'the proceedings' means


proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.
(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — Gas Bill

Lords amendments considered

Clause 1

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF GAS SUPPLY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 6, leave out
notice in writing" and insert "reasonable notice".

The Minister of State, Department of Energy (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following Lords amendments: No. 6, in clause 11, page 11, line 28, leave out "in writing".
No. 12, in clause 38, page 40, line 37, leave out "in writing".
No. 22, in schedule 5, page 77, line 18, leave out "in writing".

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The House is aware that concern was expressed in another place that the director might, under certain circumstances, resign at short notice, whereby there would be insufficient time to find a suitable replacement. The suggestion was made that if a formulation could be found requiring reasonable notice, a suitable constraint would be introduced. The amendment put forward by the Government in another place achieved precisely that effect but it also removed the words "in writing", which we think are redundant. They are already included in the definition of notice in clause 48. That is also the effect of amendments Nos. 6, 12 and 22, which leave out the redundant words "in writing". I hope that the House will have no difficulty with the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2

THE GAS CONSUMERS' COUNCIL

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 2, line 22, leave out from "shall" to end of line 25 and insert
so far as practicable, ensure—

(a) that the members of the Council include members who, by reason of their familiarity with the special requirements and circumstances of the different areas of Great Britain or of small businesses, are able together to represent the interests of consumers of gas supplied through pipes in all those areas and of such businesses; and
(b) that the interests of consumers of gas supplied through pipes in different areas are represented by different members wherever that appears to the Secretary of State to be appropriate having regard to the manner in which the various parts of the gas supply industry in Great Britain organise themselves."

Read a Second time.

Mr. Stanley Orme: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, in line 6, after `businesses', insert 'or of trade unions'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (b) to the proposed Lords amendment, in line 12, after 'members', insert
'who shall be nominated by County and District authorities'.
Lords amendment No. 10, in clause 26, in page 31, line 22, at end insert "and to the Council".
Lords amendment No. 18, in schedule 2, page 65, line 23, at end insert—
(2A) For the purpose of ensuring that there are persons available in particular localities to assist the Council in the performance in those localities of its functions under this Act, the Council may, without any such approval as is required by subparagraph (1) above, appoint such persons to be so available as it may determine.
(2B) Persons appointed under sub-paragraph (2A) above shall not be paid any sums by the Council for or in resepect of their services except sums reimbursing them for their travelling expenses and such of their other out-of-pocket expenses as do not relate to loss of remuneration.

Mr. Orme: The amendments deal with trade union and local authority representation on consumer councils. This is linked directly to consumer representation. As we have seen from the history of Oftel, Professor Carsberg and the problems that have arisen from the British Telecommunications Bill, we believe that stronger representation is needed for consumer protection when the British Gas Corporation is transferred to a private monopoly as opposed to a public monopoly. At the moment the corporation is subject to parliamentary and ministerial accountability. The Secretary of State has been pleased to tell us on many occasions that that accountability will be removed when the corporation becomes a plc and a private monopoly.
Although there will be an office in all but one of the regions, that is no substitute for a full regional structure with sustained lay involvement. The abolition of the regional councils means that the regional offices will be rudderless. They are likely to become transmitters of policy from above instead of acting as independent representatives of their regions.
The inclusion of one regional member on a national council is hardly an adequate replacement for a full regional council. There can be no informed discussion of the issues and the problems relevant to a particular area. The Government have included in that representation country and small businesses. Local voluntary representatives will also be appointed. We are not opposed to that, but it is not sufficient. There ought to be more representation. We recommend that trade unions and local authorities should have statutory representation. That is the core of our argument.
In another place Lord Belstead talked about a rigid, regionalised structure that could be improved. How can the reduction in consumer council staff by 40 per cent., and the downgrading of the status of regional secretaries, coupled with the abolition of the councils and lay representation in favour of one centralised structure, be said to be an improvement in consumer representation? We raised this issue consistently in Committee, and it has been raised in another place. On both occasions, we have not had satisfactory answers from the Government.
Paid regional managers are not the answer to consumer representation. Because of the limited time, I shall keep my remarks fairly brief. We think that the amendments are important. We believe that the Government could accept them. They would broaden the base of consumer representation.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) has moved amendment (a). I am not sure about amendment (b), since advertently, or deliberately, he has contrived to miss out Scottish regional councils.

Mr. Orme: I am sure that that is an error.

Mr. Wilson: I am sure, from the look on the right hon. Gentleman's face, that he is truly penitent, but I did not know that it was Labour party policy to go for single units in local government in Scotland. If it is, it will be an improvement.
We see in the Bill the onward march of centralisation. Prior to 1972, there were autonomous gas boards in different areas of the United Kingdom. The Scottish gas board was an independent unit and was able to take full decisions. It had control over management functions and consumer operations in Scotland. The Gas Act 1972 absorbed the Scottish gas board into the British Gas Corporation. Incidentally, that was at the same time as gas was discovered off the shore of Scotland. I have often wondered whether that was a coincidence. In due fullness of time, I have come to the conclusion that it was foreseen and that it would have been undesirable to have a Scottish gas board in possession of large quantities of natural gas exclusive of London. The Scottish gas board became a division of the British Gas Corporation. No sooner was the Bill published than we saw the encroachment of centralisation. Scottish Gas, a hallowed name in the energy field, to be was obliterated and would become British Gas (Scotland). In addition, the Bill proposed to abolish consumer councils in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
We are seeing the creation of a huge private monopoly which will not be accountable in any way to consumers. There will be no watchdog body left in Scotland, Wales or in other areas to bark if British Gas plc acts out of turn. It is highly desirable that there should be such a watchdog separate from the consumers council in Scotland which can look at policy considerations and raise matters on behalf of consumers with the Director General of Gas Supply.
7.30 pm
It is a pity that the Lords amendment does not go far enough. It provides that
the members of the Council include members who, by reason of their familiarity with the special requirements and circumstances of the different areas of Great Britain".
They are lumped together with people who represent other interests. I am not satisfied with the formula that has been approved by the other place or with what the Government initially came up with.
We are failing to take account of the full importance of the regional factor and of the need for decentralisation of policy making, management and consultation. Since the Bill was first considered, in Scotland we have noticed that the Law Lords have allowed the TSB to become privatised and Guinness has taken over Distillers. In Committee Ministers said, "We can all trust British Gas because the management will be the same." Some of us were inclined not fully to agree with that statement. The ink on the takeover document was hardly dry when it was decided cavalierly to throw overboard the Scottish dimension—the promise had been made to maintain it — by Mr. Ernest Saunders, the chairman designate of the amalgamated company. That shows what will happen to


British Gas in the self-regulated atmosphere of the City of London. It could run amok as Guinness has done. Who will be able to halt it?
I do not believe that the consumers council in Scotland will have sufficient powers to control British Gas. That is why I should have preferred British Gas to be dismembered so that regional and national companies could operate in each autonomous area of the United Kingdom. But such a formula is not available.
I welcome the Lords amendments, which are slight, but I believe that the Government have taken leave of their senses in abolishing the Gas Consumers Council for Scotland.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) who made a number of points on the creeping centralisation which has been inflicted on us by the Government and on the demise of the recognition of regional status in Britain. The Lords amendment goes some way towards recognising a regional dimension. It must be welcomed, although I believe that it was a reluctant measure by the Government and that the hon. Member for Dundee, East accepted it without much enthusiasm. The recommendations are as vague and weak as possible. We should have come to expect that from this Government. They have provided the minimum possible that they can get away with. This is a strange departure by a Government who, when they came to power, committed themselves to giving local people and areas much more responsibility and a greater say in their affairs. Instead, the amendment is minimalistic, referring to different areas without defining what they should be.
I believe that a regional structure for Britain is the right and sensible way to proceed. With such a structure, we would know precisely what we mean by different areas. The structure would be defined in the Bill and given some form of expression. I look forward to the day when that happens.
I welcome the inclusion in Lords amendment No. 2 of small businesses, although, again, there is no definition of how they shall be drawn up and who shall represent them. Close reading of the Bill has led me to believe that the people who represent the different areas of Great Britain and the representatives of small businesses must be one and the same people. I feel certain that that is not the Government's intention. I hope that the Minister will clarify that technical point and make it clear that the Government see them as being different people.
My noble Friend Lord Diamond asked the Government to reveal the overall size of the council. It was important for us to know whether those who represented the different areas of Great Britain would be swamped by the Government's nominees who represented the centralised view, which the Government put forward with such effect whenever they have the opportunity. I understand that the response in the other place was that the expected overall size of the council would be about 25 members. It will be helpful if the Minister can clarify that statement.
I welcome the Labour party's amendments. The key point is that the consumer's interest should be represented. Insofar as the trade unions have a voice which should be expressed in this regard, their representation would be

welcome. However, I do not wish the council to become so overburdened with other representatives that the ordinary consumer is not properly represented.

Mr. Orme: When we talk about the trade unions, we are talking not just about the trade unions within the industry but in the wider context.

Mr. Ashdown: I am grateful for that clarification. I assumed that that was the case but it is useful to have it on the record.
Amendment (b), which refers to nomination by county and district authorities, does something to clarify an otherwise ridiculously vague definition, and I welcome it. I hope that, in the execution of the amendment, attention will be concentrated on those members "nominated by", rather than representatives of, county and district authorities. No doubt, local councillors have important views to put forward and a scattering of them should be members of the council, but I hope that county and district authorities will be prepared to nominate people other than local councillors. I welcome the amendments and hope that the Minister sees fit to accept them because they strengthen the Bill.

Mr. Peter Pike: I support the two amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). Throughout the passage of the Bill, Labour Members have recognised, despite their opposition to the principle of the Bill, that the Government with their majority would force the Bill through regardless of whether it was a good Bill for energy and for consumers. We have always sought to protect consumers' interests. That is why, even at this late stage, we put forward two amendments. The Government have repeatedly assured us that they believe that the consumers have been given the best ever deal with this Bill. We totally reject that view and believe that there is insufficient protection for the consumer in the Bill. It is vital to improve the role of consumers, especially once we have moved from a public to a private monopoly.
We have never argued that the present protection and safeguards for consumers are perfect, but we believe that now is the right time to improve them. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) referred to the words "nominated by" in our second amendment. He was right to take the wider interpretation. It was not intended that they should necessarily be district or county councillors, although some might be. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) was right to make the point about Scotland and about the miswording of the amendment. Even last week the Bill was still being debated in the House of Lords, so the amendment had to be drafted at very short notice.
Both our amendments are important. The one seeks to involve trade unionists, giving them a voice on the Gas Consumers Council and the other seeks to ensure that representatives are nominated by county and district councils. We recognise that the Lords amendment is a slight improvement on the wording of the Bill when it left this House but even at this late stage it would be further improved by our amendments.

Mr. Allan Rogers: We hope that the House will support the amendments as they would considerably improve the Bill. Throughout the Committee stage we were extremely concerned at the lack of input in the


control of the gas industry from people other than the poodles appointed by the Secretary of State. Throughout the passage of the Bill Ministers have taken a Stalinist attitude, increasingly gathering all power to the centre, which is so much a feature of Government policy and of the Bill. Our views will not find much support from the alliance, which did not provide much support in Committee. Nevertheless, it is nice to see the alliance achieving some kind of presence today.
It is important for district and county councils to participate, especially at regional level, because nominations will otherwise be entirely in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is a negation of democracy and democratic accountability to the consumer. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made heavy weather of consumer interests and the alliance being the party of the consumer, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) argued that point strongly in Committee. That is why we have put down these amendments. We want greater participation in the control of the industry.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: I wish briefly to support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others who have spoken in this short debate. Our opposition to the Bill since it began its passage through the House has been based on the inability of the consumer to make a major impact on this privatised monopoly. We are totally dissatisfied with the Ofgas proposal and the proposal for the Gas Consumers Council. We want a much more powerful regulatory body and function and a much stronger consumer voice than is proposed in the Bill.
The Lords amendment is welcome, but it is extremely modest. The Labour party's amendments strengthen it somewhat and are thus also welcome. Nevertheless, we should go much further. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) pointed out that regional representation and national representation of the regions had been considerably weakened. The Northern Gas Consumers Council has made strong representations to me. It also made proposals to the Government about ways in which it could be much better integrated into the system proposed in the Bill, but those proposals fell on deaf ears, as have all other proposals to give the consumer a stronger voice than the Bill at present proposes.
7.45 pm
The cost of Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council will be about £2 million, which is only two thirds of the cost of Oftel, the organisation that regulates British Telecom. We see no reason why the functions of Ofgas and the Gas Consumers Council should be less necessary than those of Oftel. We want a pledge from the Government substantially to increase the powers and resources of the regulatory body and of the council. We therefore support the Labour party's amendments and look forward to proper regulation of this privatised monopoly at some time in the future.

Mr. Peter Hardy: We are grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). If he had followed the detailed consideration of the Bill, he would know that the

arguments that he has advanced today were put time and again in Committee. Had the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) been present today, he could have confirmed that he joined us in our efforts to secure the very improvements that the hon. Member for Stockton, South seeks.

Mr. Ashdown: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will inform his hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) of that. My hon. Friend was assiduous in his attendance in Committee. I am told by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), and the record shows, that my hon. Friend also voted assiduously throughout proceedings on the Bill. The criticism advanced by the hon. Member for Rhondda was therefore mean spirited, unnatural and unreasonable.

Mr. Hardy: I confirm that on those occasions when the hon. Member for Gordon was present he generally supported us. That is the most generous gesture that I am prepared to make as I have great sympathy with the view advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). Nevertheless, we are grateful for the support, modest though it may be and modest though our proposals are—modest because there is no chance of the Government accepting anything better.
We recognise the importance of small businesses, and our amendment neither denies nor decries them. There are many small businesses in Britain, perhaps many more than there were a few years ago. That is inevitable as people try to escape crippling dependency and to find an occupation after unemployment. Moreover, many businesses have contracted so much that they are small businesses now when a little while ago they were quite substantial. We appreciate that one of the hopes for Britain lies in the growth of small businesses and we do not depart from the change made in the other place, but, just as we believe that the voice of the small business should be heard, we believe that the voice of the consumer, too, must be heeded.
There is no organisation of greater significance than the trade union movement representing consumers in Great Britain. Many millions of consumers are members of trade unions and both lay and full-time officials are perhaps more familiar with the concerns and anxieties of ordinary people than any other organisation in Britain. We are not asking a great deal. The Minister said that he was eager and grateful — [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) should pay attention as there are many trade union members in his constituency.

Mr. David Penhaligon: There are only seven other Labour Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Hardy: We seek to give those trade union members the opportunity to voice the anxieties of the hon. Gentleman's constituents as well as our own. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, I shall be glad to give way. If not, perhaps he will recognise that we are putting forward a valid and reasonable argument. [Interruption.] I can only suppose that the hon. Gentleman enjoyed his weekend enormously.
The Government recognised the importance of trade unions when they said that the door was open and that they were always willing to see them to discuss the Bill. If that was so while the Bill was under consideration, it is reasonable to suggest that the trade unions should have some recognition as proposed in one of the two amendments.
The trade union movement is in need of a gesture. I learnt the other day—when this is generally known, I believe that it will cause considerable resentment in the industry — that the firm of Young and Rubicam, advertising agents in New York, is being paid £15 million to advertise the flotation of British Gas in the United States. That is perhaps a slightly larger amount than the value of the free shares that will accrue to the near 100,000 employees of British Gas. Therefore, the Government will be demonstrating how little regard they have for those who have made the British gas industry so successful. The employees are to receive the same value in shares as will be paid in fees to the advertising agents in New York. That serious comparison illustrates how appalling the Government's attitude is to those trade unionists in the gas industry who have helped to ensure that it is one of the most successful undertakings in Britain. The gesture for which we are asking is more than justified when we think of the fee that will be paid to the advertising agents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who played a pertinacious part in our debates in Committee, echoed the point that was rightly made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). Amendment (b) is drafted as it is in the interests of brevity, but we took it that, if the Government were to accept it, they could not ignore Scotland as a whole.

Mr. Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hardy: I would rather not, in the interests of brevity.
The Government have made a reluctant, creeping and modest change. If the Minister is to be consistent, he should accept both our amendments. Let me illustrate the value of amendment (b). The Minister has been in the House for a long time, and during our proceedings on the Bill he frequently referred to his constituency. As the Parliamentary Under-Secretary represents a marginal seat, he will understand that people often complain to Members of Parliament and to their local authorities. Both Ministers will recognise that the local authority charged with responsibility for personal social services is perhaps extremely familiar with the difficulties and problems that people encounter in their domestic environment. Such a local authority will know who is likely to be affected by fuel poverty or who is likely to have difficulty paying the gas bill. Given the expertise that exists within local authorities, it is perfectly reasonable that amendment (b) should be proposed.
As the Minister will be aware, local authorities and the gas undertakings at present have a very good, close contact and decent relationship. Whether that relationship can remain the same when faced with a privatised monopoly is open to question. Many experienced local government officers with day-to-day responsibility in this area have some anxiety about the maintenance of that relationship. It is important for local authorities to be in contact and have dialogue with the gas undertakings. For that reason, we should enhance the prospect of the maintenance of a decent dialogue by accepting amendment (b) to allow local authority representation on the Gas Consumers Council.
I do not know how many people will serve on the council, but I gather that the Minister has about two dozen people in mind. There is surely a need for one or more of those two dozen to be serving on local authorities. The same argument applies to the trade union movement. It

would be appropriate and decent to accept amendment (a) as well. Given what has happened today, that would also be a responsible gesture.
We should like to have had several hours to debate these matters, but we do not have such time. Out of the wretched two hours that have been allocated we shall be unable to vote on both the amendments. The Minister could save us the bother of voting and allow us to concentrate on the subsequent amendments if he accepted both these proposals. If he does not, I propose that we vote on amendment (b).

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that the Opposition have welcomed the amendments that were made in the other place, although I appreciate that both Opposition amendments to not go as far as some hon. Members would wish.
There has never been any doubt about the value of what people with local interests can contribute to a body such as a consumers council. It was always the intention that the different areas of British Gas should be represented on the Gas Consumers Council. The amendments that were agreed in the other place, and which I commend to the House, spell that out more clearly and give effect to what hon. Members have said on earlier occasions.
No reference has been made to Lords amendment No. 18, which is also important. It provides for local representatives on an expenses-paid basis to be maintained, as is the position at present. That is something in which the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) will be particularly interested. He said that his wife had performed that useful task, and I accept that a useful job has been done by British Gas in liaison with consumers when complaints have arisen. That is another improvement to the Bill which I am glad to commend to the House.
I must refute what was said by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson). During our earlier discussions he uttered many generalities. He said that we had an integrated gas industry, that all the gas in Scotland could be taken to London and that there was centralisation. The hon. Gentleman overdoes it. I remind him that more gas is produced south of the border than is produced north of the border. I also remind him that we as a nation are enormous importers of gas. We export gas from Scotland to south of the border, but if the hon. Gentleman looks at my Department's Brown Book he will see that our main gas reserves are in the southern basin of the North sea. However, I do not intend to be drawn into an argument about where a dividing line might be drawn.

Mr. Wilson: Is the Minister not aware that it took years, for the gas network to reach Scotland, and that consequently many Scottish people were prevented from obtaining supplies of cheap gas? But no sooner had the gas reached those parts of Scotland than the Government began driving up the price.
I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the parliamentary answer that he gave me today, which shows that north of 55° 50'—the Scottish jurisdiction sector— 12·4 billion cu m of gas were produced from the Scottish fields. For a country of 5 million people we have no supply problems, but will the United Kingdom not have supply problems in the future because of the Government's failure to go ahead with the importation of Norwegian gas?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith:: I am not withdrawing the answer that I gave the hon. Gentleman, but I wish that he would


listen to me. He should look to see where our main reserves lie in the long term. I know the hon. Gentleman's views on importation, but to go to the length of drawing a parallel with Guinness and DCL is to go too far.
The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) also made some general points about centralisation, and I shall deal with them in the same way. There is not over-centralisation, and we have ensured area representation, particularly through these amendments. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the drafting, and I can assure him that it is not defective. Those representing the particular interests of an area and the interests of a small business need not be one and the same person. I am assured that the drafting is clear on that.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) asked about the size of the Gas Consumers Council. We expect there to be 20 representatives on it, 12 representatives from British Gas areas and eight who are appointed for other reasons.

8 pm

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Will the Minister confirm that the trade unions and county and district councils will have no part to play on that body?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall come to that in a moment.

Mr. Ashdown: May I return to centralisation, which the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) also raised once he had got over his fit of pique at the result of the Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election? According to any rational judgment, the Bill amounts to a move towards centralisation. As the GCC is ultimately accountable to the House, there is a safeguard on that centralisation. However, we all know that the Government's ultimate intention is to have a more centralised body accountable, not to the House, but to the market place and the needs of commerce. Therefore, it is important to enshrine in the Bill a degree of accountability through local authorities. Surely the Minister must realise that.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Gentleman neglects the role of the Director of Ofgas, and I deny what the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said. We have introduced an extremely rigorous regulatory system. I accept that the system does not cover as wide an area of gas supply as the alliance party may have liked, but I do not intend to debate that again tonight. We have introduced tight regulation for the areas where we believe there is a risk of monopoly power. It is interesting that a party which has been liberal in the short traditions that it has set should want greater regulation. That demonstrates the background from which alliance Members come.
The hon. Member for Yeovil should study and consult the industry. There is not a monopoly in other areas. The hon. Gentleman did not serve in Committee on the Bill, which was not his fault, but, as we have explained, we consulted other interests such as the small business sector of the CBI and it did not want regulation in the areas into which alliance Members would like to extend it. I hope that the public will take note that the alliance wishes to extend regulation, which would mean an extension of central control. That runs counter to some of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, but perhaps we should not be too unaccustomed to such inconsistencies.
I shall not go over all the arguments, because time is short. In the Bill we have attempted to introduce a completely new Gas Consumers Council structure which is partly based on experiences from the workings of the old structure. The regional structure, with the autonomous regional councils and a central council, was top heavy in terms of administration and cost effectiveness. That is why, after a careful study of that previous machinery, we have introduced a new structure. The new organisation will be smaller and more streamlined, and so long as attention is paid to the importance of the different areas of British Gas it will be equally effective on a regional level.
The amendments seek to add trade union representatives and representatives of persons nominated by county and district authorities. They are based on the Gas Act 1972, but I remind the House that those representatives were appointed to regional councils, not to the central council. When we move to the single council, the Gas Consumers Council, the basis will be different, for the reasons I gave earlier.
It is true that I have recommended the acceptance of an amendment which takes account of the needs of small businesses, but small businesses are in the consumer section of the community. Therefore, they are different from trade unions and it is not necessary to write in specific representation from that relatively small sector.
There was a very much more positive role for the direct involvement of local authorities in a regional council, as the 1972 Act recognised, but now we are talking of representatives, not to regional bodies, but to a central body, so the role of local authorities has changed. That is not to say that there is no longer a role for them, but I do not recommend writing it formally into the Bill, as these amendments suggest. The organising committee, which is setting up the Gas Consumers Council, is now considering appointments to that council and is having consultations with the various local authority associations. I should prefer to leave the provision as it stands—that is, for a national body representing consumers. It is not in anyone's best interests to write in specific representation from one sector of the community or another. For that reason, I ask the House to reject the two amendments.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 2 negatived.

Amendment proposed to the Lords amendment (b), in line 12, after 'members', insert
`who shall be nominated by County and District authorities'.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 241.

Division No. 269]
[8.08 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)


Ashdown, Paddy
Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)


Ashton, Joe
Buchan, Norman


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Caborn, Richard


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Ian


Barnett, Guy
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Barron, Kevin
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Bell, Stuart
Clarke, Thomas


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Clay, Robert


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Clelland, David Gordon


Bidwell, Sydney
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Blair, Anthony
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)


Boyes, Roland
Cohen, Harry






Coleman, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
Marek, Dr John


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Corbett, Robin
Martin, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Michie, William


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Deakins, Eric
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dewar, Donald
Nellist, David


Dobson, Frank
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dormand, Jack
O'Brien, William


Douglas, Dick
O'Neill, Martin


Dubs, Alfred
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Duffy, A. E. P.
Park, George


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Parry, Robert


Eadie, Alex
Patchett, Terry


Eastham, Ken
Pavitt, Laurie


Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)
Pendry, Tom


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Penhaligon, David


Ewing, Harry
Pike, Peter


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Radice, Giles


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Flannery, Martin
Raynsford, Nick


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, Martin


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Robertson, George


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Rogers, Allan


Garrett, W. E.
Rooker, J. W.


George, Bruce
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Gourlay, Harry
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hardy, Peter
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Harman, Ms Harriet
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Heffer, Eric S
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Skinner, Dennis


Home Robertson, John
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Hoyle, Douglas
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Strang, Gavin


Janner, Hon Greville
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


John, Brynmor
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Tinn, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Torney, Tom


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Wallace, James


Kirkwood, Archy
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Lambie, David
Wareing, Robert


Lamond, James
White, James


Leadbitter, Ted
Wigley, Dafydd


Leighton, Ronald
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Winnick, David


Litherland, Robert
Woodall, Alec


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Loyden, Edward



McCartney, Hugh
Tellers for the Ayes:


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Mr. Don Dixon and


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Mr. Derek Fatchett.


McKelvey, William



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)


Alexander, Richard
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Ancram, Michael
Baldry, Tony


Ashby, David
Batiste, Spencer


Aspinwall, Jack
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Bellingham, Henry





Bendall, Vivian
Heddle, John


Benyon, William
Henderson, Barry


Bevan, David Gilroy
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hill, James


Blackburn, John
Hirst, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Hunter, Andrew


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Key, Robert


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Bright, Graham
Lawler, Geoffrey


Brinton, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Lee, John (Pendle)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Bruinvels, Peter
Lester, Jim


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Lightbown, David


Buck, Sir Antony
Lilley, Peter


Budgen, Nick
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Bulmer, Esmond
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Burt, Alistair
Lord, Michael


Butterfill, John
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Lyell, Nicholas


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Macfarlane, Neil


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Cash, William
Maclean, David John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Chope, Christopher
Major, John


Churchill, W. S.
Malins, Humfrey


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Maples, John


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Marland, Paul


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Clegg, Sir Walter
Mates, Michael


Cockeram, Eric
Mather, Carol


Colvin, Michael
Maude, Hon Francis


Coombs, Simon
Mellor, David


Cope, John
Merchant, Piers


Corrie, John
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Cranborne, Viscount
Miscampbell, Norman


Critchley, Julian
Moate, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Monro, Sir Hector


Dickens, Geoffrey
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dorrell, Stephen
Morris, M. (N'hampton S)


Dover, Den
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Mudd, David


Dunn, Robert
Murphy, Christopher


Durant, Tony
Neale, Gerrard


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Nelson, Anthony


Eggar, Tim
Newton, Tony


Evennett, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Norris, Steven


Fallon, Michael
Onslow, Cranley


Fletcher, Alexander
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Fookes, Miss Janet
Osborn, Sir John


Forman, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Franks, Cecil
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Fry, Peter
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Pollock, Alexander


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Porter, Barry


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Portillo, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Powley, John


Gower, Sir Raymond
Price, Sir David


Gregory, Conal
Proctor, K. Harvey


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Raffan, Keith


Grist, Ian
Renton, Tim


Grylls, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Rossi, Sir Hugh






Rost, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rowe, Andrew
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Thornton, Malcolm


Ryder, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Trippier, David


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walden, George


Silvester, Fred
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Sims, Roger
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wall, Sir Patrick


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Ward, John


Speller, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Warren, Kenneth


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Watts, John


Squire, Robin
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wheeler, John


Steen, Anthony
Whitfield, John


Stern, Michael
Wiggin, Jerry


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, John
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Michael


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Yeo, Tim


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Terlezki, Stefan



Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mr. Gerald Malone.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 4

GENERAL DUTIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE AND DIRECTOR

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 28, at end insert—
(3) In performing his duty under subsection (2) above to exercise functions assigned to him in the manner which he considers is best calculated to protect the interests of consumers of gas supplied through pipes in respect of the quality of the gas supply services provided, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Director shall take into account, in particular, the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age.

Read a Second time.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to move, as an amendment to the Lords amendment, at end add
`or who are in receipt of any social security benefit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 5, in page 5, line 44, at end insert—
(aa) such conditions requiring arrangements to be made with respect to the provision of special services for meeting the needs of consumers of gas supplied through pipes who are disabled or of pensionable age as appear to the Secretary of State to be requisite or expedient having regard to those duties;
and, as an amendment to the proposed amendment, after `age', insert
`or who are in receipt of any social security benefit'.

Mr. Rowlands: These amendments amend interesting and important amendments made in the other place. Lords amendments Nos. 3 and 5 go some way to meet the

demands made from all parts of the House from the beginning of our proceedings on the Bill that we should seek ways and means to improve the safeguards for the most disadvantaged consumers and to protect their interests wherever possible after privatisation. Therefore, we welcome the Lords amendments, but believe that they can go a lot further.
We also welcome one or two other amendments made in the other place, particularly the letter of assurance that was published in answer to the planted written question on 17 July about the various assurances given by the chairman of British Gas. I notice that all these assurances —it is important that they be clearly stated—last only as long as certain conditions in the licence. If those were removed, the assurances would fall. It is rather important that we remind ourselves of that point.
Opposition Members welcome the Government's climbdown on standing charges. The original draft proposals were revealed in The Guardian just before publication of the Bill. They suggested that standing charges, under the code, could be raised by the RPI plus. There was some alteration later with the substitution of the famous phrase "best endeavours" to maintain standing charges. I recall with interest the Under-Secretary defending those words, using his law books to tell us that they were just as good as "must", "have to be" or "essential". We are relieved to see that he has cast aside his law books and replaced them by plain, good, English.
We have at least a concession from the Government, and one for which we fought in Committee. The Committee stage would have been shorter and less arduous if those modest concessions had been made then. We are relieved that gone from the conditions on standing charges are the weasel words "best endeavours". Now, British Gas will have to ensure that any increase is no higher than the RPI.
These amendments help and assist the most disadvantaged gas consumers — the elderly, the poorest consumers and the disabled — although the best way to do so is to keep gas prices down as much as possible. It is worthwhile reminding the House of the aim of the Bill. It is paving the way for the sale of British Gas. We have discovered that the Government will raid the accounts of British Gas to the tune of £2·5 billion, after having taken nearly £500 million from the gas consumers through the gas levy, but the company will still be presented to the stock market with a huge and healthy profit.
The best way to help the poorest consumers is not by offering discount shares to some customers but by offering a lower gas tariff to all customers. Given the money that is available, which can be taken out of the British Gas Corporation, the levy and the dividend raid on the company's account before privatisation, there is a strong case for an alternative to discount share buying. We recognise that the argument is not only about tariffs and prices but about the service provided. These amendments deal with such services.
We welcome amendments Nos. 3 and 5 amending clauses 4 and 7 to take into account
the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age.
The case that was argued both here and in the other place by Lord Stoddard of Swindon and others was that we should ensure that there are special provisions for the elderly, the poor and the disabled, not only on gas tariffs and prices but on services. The additional provisions


offered in amendments Nos. 3 and 5, particularly in the new conditions attached to the licence, could go further and be extended to at least one other category of consumer —those in receipt of social security benefit.
The words in amendments Nos. 3 and 5 to take into account
the interests of those who are disabled or of pensionable age
would he of a general character if there were not the benefit of a new draft condition attached to the licence which spells out specifically what they mean. I ask the House to take the amendments with the new conditions that have been proposed.
To give meaning to the new provisions in clauses 4 and 7, four special services will be offered as a condition of the licence. I have with me the form that sets them out. They include:
examining free of charge … the safety of gas appliances … providing where practicable special controls and adaptors … and prepayment meters … providing special means of identifying officers authorised by the Supplier; and giving advice on the use of gas fittings.
Those special services will be placed in the new conditions, thereby giving meaning to amendments Nos. 3 and 5. I hope that the Minister will, in a spirit of generosity, accept our case that at least two of those four special categories could and should apply to those in receipt of social security benefit.
8.30 pm
The two that apply are those that offer the opportunity of examining free of charge the safety of gas appliances and of giving advice on the use of gas and gas fittings. The amendment paves the way for additional changes to the draft condition, which is being introduced by the Government, in order to extend some of the provisions and special services to the poorest customers who do not fall into the two specific categories of being elderly or disabled. Two of the recommendations in the conditions apply specifically to the elderly and disabled, and could and should be extended to the poorest gas consumers.
We know that neglecting the safety of gas appliances is a function not just of age or disability but often of finance. If one cannot afford to call out a gas fitter or to have a gas appliance examined, the dangers can be devastating. Thus, that is one of the four draft conditions that could easily apply to those in receipt of social security benefit, who are among the poorest of gas consumers.
Advice on the use of gas and gas fittings is as of much significance to the poorest gas consumer in our society as to the elderly or disabled. I do not detract from the value and importance of those special services to those two categories of customers, but I cannot understand the logic of not extending them to those poorest consumers who are neither elderly nor disabled.
I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to those points. I anticipate that he may say that a provision covering the efficient use of appliances has already been laid down in general terms in condition 13. But that could also apply to the elderly and the disabled. However, the Government have rightly and understandably sought to specify some special services which, although covered by the generic provisions of condition 13, should also be highlighted in an additional condition. We believe that the best way of assisting the poorest customer, whether elderly, disabled or simply poor, is by maintaining the lowest possible tariffs and, most importantly, by offering

a range of special services to the poorest of customers. It is in that spirit of generosity that we urge the Minister to respond and to join us in supporting the amendment.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I rise to support the amendments, although I do so without much heart, because throughout our lengthy discussions on the Bill in Committee the Government turned a deaf ear to our pleas on behalf of some of the poorest consumers in our society. It became especially clear throughout our discussions on the Bill that the Government's plan to sell off British Gas to pay for tax cuts is a gigantic financial swindle. The public will undoubtedly be the losers and only the rich will benefit. Having said that, we must, even at this late stage, hope that the Government will be swayed by our arguments to try to protect some of those who will be most affected by some of the things that we predict will happen as a result of privatisation.
During the past decade the poor have suffered most from increases in fuel costs. They tend to live in bad housing, often with poor insulation. They often have damp houses that suffer from condensation. They can seldom choose the heating that they would like, and they often land up with expensive and inefficient systems. Those who can least afford it are thus forced to pay the most to keep warm. That leads to a failure to pay bills and to misery. In Committee, we gave the Government many examples of acute cases of poverty. I quoted at some length from the many reports carried out by welfare organisations on the effect of fuel poverty on people in Britain.
From the Government's own figures it seems that 60 per cent. of all people on supplementary benefit and 90 per cent. of pensioners on supplementary benefit now receive a heating addition. That makes the case for the amendments. Every winter, especially last winter, people have died from hypothermia. An increasing number of elderly people and young children die. They are often the children of families living on social security benefit. All of them are at risk, because they or their families cannot afford the fuel necessary to keep warm. Government policies, as enunciated today, will undoubtedly increase that possibility.
The causes of fuel poverty must be tackled by other changes in policy, such as housing and income support as well as fuel pricing policies. Many people simply do not have the financial resources to heat their homes properly. Fuel poverty is a real and growing problem, and the Government cannot get away from that. If the Government make special provision for the elderly and the disabled, whom we know need increased heating because of their problems, how can they exclude people on social security benefit?
From evidence produced in 1982, it seems that more than 50 per cent. of disconnections occurred in households with children under 10 years old. Of the households disconnected, two-fifths had a head of family unemployed and more than 10 per cent. had a head of family who was sick or disabled. We have been given much evidence from welfare organisations, which has shown clearly that there is a vital need for proper regulation of the relationship between the fuel supplier and its customers. Therefore, I support the amendment.

Mr. Ashdown: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) whose work on fuel poverty


is respected on both sides of the House and whose contribution to the Bill in that respect is valuable, and is recognised as such by all hon. Members. The hon. Lady made some points about hypothermia to which I shall return shortly. I shall put a slightly different emphasis on those points, but I agree that the amendment and clauses 3 and 5 are worth supporting. We shall certainly support them tonight. That was the only major concession that was wrung out of the Government. They gave it unwillingly, and struggled until the last moment. It is an official indictment of the Government that they gave it unwillingly and were forced to do so only because they recognised the argument in the last analysis.
I join the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in welcoming clauses 3 and 5. I do so unenthusiastically for two reasons. First, I believe strongly that the appropriate mechanism for assisting the disadvantaged in a civilised nation is so to construct things that they do not need any charitable or special provision. People should be able to live ordinary lives on an ordinary and dignified basis.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made an important point when he said that the best way to assist the aged, the disabled and those who were disadvantaged for other reasons would be to provide a sufficiently low gas tariff. Overall that is the best way to assist. Another way would be to pay a decent pension so that people would not have to rely on charity, on special clauses in Bills or the hand out of free bus passes. There is a psychological attitude towards our elderly and disadvantaged people which unhappily ghettoises large numbers of people according to their disadvantages and age. That prevents them from taking their full part as members of society. That is my first reason for being unenthusiastic about the way in which we have arrived at this point.
My second reason is that once again the Government amendment is as minimal as they can allow. It uses phrases such as "take into account". One wonders why the Government were not able to include phrases such as "the needs of old-age pensioners or the disabled". Goodness knows that need is powerful and well enough established. I pay tribute to my predecessor the former Liberal candidate in the Yeovil constituency because he placed me in a position to win that seat. Much more importantly, he and his wife discovered the phenomenon which we now know as hypothermia. Many thousands of people owe him a great debt for discovering that phenomenon.
As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley has said, since 1975 some 12,000 people in Britain have died from hypothermia, an average of 1,230 a year. I disagree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley only on the matter of emphasis, because, while there is no doubt that there are well known and documented cases of young children in that tragic and awful litany of unnecessary deaths, the vast preponderance of those cases is among the aged. Four died in my constituency, not last winter mercifully but the winter before. That is a disgrace in a civilised society. However, all these points were made at length in Committee and I have no wish to delay proceedings now. Suffice it to say that, because the vast preponderance of that disgraceful total of 12,000 dying from hypothermia are the aged and among that total are a number of

disabled, it is incumbent on us to recognise that there ought to be a specific recognition of the special needs of the aged.
The clause should recognise the needs of the aged and the disabled and ought to take into account the needs of those on supplementary benefit. The Government will not do that. Because the Opposition amendment would strengthen the clause, I have no objection to it. I support it perhaps more enthusiastically in clause 7 than in clause 4, but we shall vote in favour of both amendments because at least they broaden the scope, recognise the problem and strengthen the clause.
I turn now to the matter of recognition which is not voluntary but mandatory. In another place Lord Diamond, on behalf of the alliance, tried to introduce an amendment with almost exactly the same wording in line 38, page 5. This amendment is in line 44. That amendment would have made the requirements mandatory. Some of us believe that the amendment at present allows it to apply on a rather more voluntary basis. I was reassured to read in the report of the proceedings in the other place that the Government said that in their view this amendment, together with other amendments, make this requirement mandatory. It would be of benefit to the House if the Minister would confirm that point. I repeat that this amendment lays down a duty which is not voluntary but mandatory. If he will give us precisely the argument for that, it will go on the record and then there can be no doubt.

Mr. Pike: I support the amendment because it is probably one of the most important improvements of the Bill. However, it could go a little further. That is why we are moving our amendment and a similar one to a later clause in the Bill. People on social security benefit are among the most deprived and poorest in Britain. Some people who are unable to go out because of poverty require more heat in their homes than people who are able to go out during the day. That also applies to the unemployed, especially in winter because they find it difficult to go out in bad weather.
We all know that any form of heating is expensive. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and others of my hon. Friends amply illustrated in Committee the fact that many people in the categories that we are discussing often had a choice between food and heating. It is atrocious that in 1986 people should have to choose between those two basic necessities of life. An announcement made in the House earlier today will worsen the situation. Last year, one of my constituents had to make a choice every weekend between food and heat.
The complications of the exceptionally severe weather payments make it far too difficult for many people to acquire the benefit to which they are entitled. Many people dare not run their heating systems at a sufficient level because they are terrified about having to obtain the benefit to which they might be entitled under the scheme. In many instances they do not know about the scheme until it is too late. We are talking not just about the elderly or the disabled, although I recognise and fully support the needs of those two categories.
At the moment I am dealing with the family whose gas was cut off last winter. They owe about £340 and the gas board has made it clear that, unless the family pays off the arrears at £10 a week until the debt is repaid, the gas


supply will not be reconnected. There are children in that family which is on supplementary benefit. It means that, with repayments of £10 a week for 34 weeks, that family will not have gas heating next winter. The amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) is an important addition to the Bill. If the Government care or have any sympathy for the poorest members in our society, they will accept it.

Mr. Wilson: I support the amendment because it is a valuable reflection of the importance that the Opposition parties at least attach to fuel poverty. It is recognised that many people die because of a lack of adequate income with which to buy heat, and that is compounded by the fact that many such people live in houses with inbuilt ventilation. The blocks are porous and the windows do not fit and heat cannot be contained in the building. Compared with Scandinavia, we treat the matter of heating for our people in a scandalous fashion.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is not just hypothermia, but the fear and dread of the expense of heating from which old people suffer?

Mr. Wilson: I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth). I have had discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security about the possibilities of establishing a cold climate allowance. One of the answers is that spending does not necessarily reflect the severity of climate. Indeed, some family surveys show that. What it means is that, in many areas, the elderly simply do not use fuel. They are frightened to use fuel and, therefore, live in a colder environment. That has been documented many times by medical people who admit that hypothermia exists.
I commend the Lords amendment and hope that, even at the last moment, the Government will accept it. The Labour party's amendment to it recognises the need to cater for the vast numbers of people who receive supplementary benefit. A fuel poverty document that I received today said that 5 million people receive supplementary benefit. I am not sure whether the family of four is still the unit, but, even with families of three, that means that 15 million people live or depend upon supplementary benefit. They have insufficient money on which to live.
In considering the privatisation of British Gas, we must examine what can be done. Since I have commended the Labour party, perhaps I should criticise it for what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said about a winter premium of £5 a week. Of course, that is a flat rate. Whether people live at the Oval or in Shetland, regardless of climate, they will receive the same sum. If they must die because the payment is not related to climate, that is just too bad. I hope that those Labour Members present will recognise the justice of the case for climatically adjusted allowances and press the hon. Member for Oldham, West into action.
If we change the way in which British Gas is financed and run, problems could arise in relation to gas supply. I have a copy of the 1985–86 annual report of the Gas Consumers Council for Scotland, which the Government will have found uncomfortable reading. Perhaps that is one reason why the consumers councils are being abolished. It states:
One of the most worrying trends in the past year has been the steep increase in the number of people being cut off

because they could not pay their gas bills. Disconnections have risen from 2,249 to 2,843, an increase of nearly 21 per cent. over 1984–85. We have continued to examine a sample of cases each month.
The council exonerates British Gas on the matter because it has followed the code of practice. However, the council says that the code of practice is probably at fault and must be amended. It says that there is
no satisfactory explanation for this increase other than the prevailing economic climate.
For many families without an adequate income, fuel debt will increase or they will be cut off.
In those circumstances, does the Bill do enough, even if amended by the Lords, to take account of that fact? I do not believe that it does, in two respects. First, in relation to maintenance, the Government have announced that they intend to restrict the number of single payments that can be made, sometimes for the purchase arid sometimes for the maintenance of equipment. There is a danger factor associated with gas which is not necessarily associated with electricity. Danger could arise if people bought stoves that were not properly maintained and could not afford to get them repaired because of a lack of single payments. If heating allowances are phased out, as they will be, there will be more poverty and more likelihood of danger.
In the latter circumstances, it would be useful if British Gas made available an advisory service that would allow those in receipt of supplementary benefit to obtain help and advice without having to pay through the nose for it. Frequently, they get no help or advice at all. Advice on heating, combined with the payments for insulation which, thankfully, the Government intend to retain, could save many families from hypothermia and from being cut off. It would be easy to set up such an advisory service and maintenance checks.
I hope that the Government will accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) calling for the inclusion of those on supplementary benefit.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: As with the previous group of amendments, I am grateful to the House for welcoming the changes that were made in the House of Lords —changes and amendments which I shall commend to the House. But we are now debating the two amendments tabled by the Opposition.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) were strange. He paid respect, fairly, to the amendment and to the need to help those in receipt of social security, but he addressed almost all his remarks to the problems of the elderly. I refer him to amendment No. 5, which contains words almost identical to the ones that he used about meeting the needs of consumers who are elderly and disabled. He might have showed some graciousness and accepted that we have incorporated precisely what he wants.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the provision is mandatory. Given the responsibility that is laid on the Secretary of State, I cannot envisage circumstances in which he could properly omit a condition in the licence on special services to the elderly and the disabled. Once that is included in the licence, if the public gas supplier breaches the conditions of the licence it will be extremely serious, as the hon. Gentleman will know from other parts of the Bill, and various matters will flow


from it. The licence can be enforced and certain steps taken if the public gas supplier is in breach of the licence. The real power lies in ensuring that that is done.
The main reason why the Lords amendments concentrated on the elderly and the disabled is that those categories are unlikely to be able to examine their appliances in the same way as a fit and able-bodied person could. That is why we decided to offer those special services only to the elderly and disabled. The provision will not relate to financial means. We are much more concerned with the physical ability of particular classes of consumer to be able to perform tasks that are necessary in the interests of safety — for example, the problems that an elderly or disabled person has in being able to go for advice to a gas showroom. Such people may be confined to the home. It is on that that the amendments from the other place concentrate. Other services are available, but people who want to take advantage of them do have to go to a showroom. Thus, we have limited the amendments from the other place to those who are old, which may mean they are immobile, and who have problems with understanding how appliances work —problems which those in receipt of social security payments will not necessarily suffer from.

9 pm

Mr. Rowlands: I am worried about the drift of the Minister's argument. It is not only the old and disabled who should not be tampering with appliances in order to decide whether they are safe. Safety is not just a problem for the old and disabled; it is a matter of knowledge. If the Minister is making the point that we are specialising in giving advice to the elderly and disabled at home, he should amend the draft condition.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The draft condition is adequate and covers advice to be given. That can be understood from any reasonable reading. That is something that British Gas has done up to now for the elderly.
I understand a great deal of what Opposition Members have said about financial help, although they sometimes overdramatise. Financial help is in a different category from what we are seeking to do relating to services. I remind the House that for pensioners the weekly scale rates for help for heating have increased by more than 6 per cent. in real terms since 1978.
For those who require more general help for heating we have increased the size of the heating additions and their availability. It is significant that they are now worth £140 million more in real terms than they were in 1979. Therefore, the Government have taken positive action to give financial help where it is needed, to which so much reference has been made. The Government need no lectures from the Opposition on the problems of those on lower incomes who need help for heating additions and in answering those needs. We have done that on a scale far greater than at any time when the Labour party had responsibility for that.
The services available to the two categories of consumers to whom the amendments from the other place apply, which I commend to the House, meet our objectives. The Government not only recognise the need for financial help but have responded to it in a real way,

which the Labour party never did when it had the power to do so. I ask the House to reject the amendments to the amendments.

Mr. Rowlands: We shall be pressing our amendments, first, because the Minister ended on a controversial note. It is little wonder that the Government have had to pay more out in heating allowances when the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as Secretary of State for Energy, for three successive years, demanded that gas prices should rise by 10 per cent. above the rate of inflation—an increase of 100 per cent. in domestic gas prices.
Secondly, I did not find convincing his arguments against extending the special provisions for those of state pensionable age and the disabled—which we welcome— to the poorest customers in our communities, in particular, advice and assistance on the safety of gas appliances and on the use of gas. Both are vital to the poorest consumers as well as to the elderly and disabled. It is for those reasons that we shall press our amendments tonight.

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 198, Noes 245.

Division No. 270]
[9.4 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Dormand, Jack


Anderson, Donald
Douglas, Dick


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dubs, Alfred


Ashdown, Paddy
Duffy, A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Ashton, Joe
Eadie, Alex


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eastham, Ken


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Edwards, Bob (W'h'mpt'n SE)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Barnett, Guy
Ewing, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Faulds, Andrew


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bell, Stuart
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Fisher, Mark


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Flannery, Martin


Bidwell, Sydney
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Blair, Anthony
Forrester, John


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Garrett, W. E.


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
George, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Caborn, Richard
Gould, Bryan


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Gourlay, Harry


Campbell, Ian
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hancock, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hardy, Peter


Clarke, Thomas
Harman, Ms Harriet


Clay, Robert
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Clelland, David Gordon
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Heffer, Eric S.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Donald
Hoyle, Douglas


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Dr Mark (Durham)


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Craigen, J. M.
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Janner, Hon Greville


Dalyell, Tam
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Deakins, Eric
Kennedy, Charles


Dewar, Donald
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Dobson, Frank
Kirkwood, Archy






Lambie, David
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Lamond, James
Robertson, George


Leadbitter, Ted
Rogers, Allan


Leighton, Ronald
Rooker, J. W.


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Litherland, Robert
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Loyden, Edward
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


McCartney, Hugh
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McKelvey, William
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McTaggart, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Madden, Max
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Martin, Michael
Soley, Clive


Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Spearing, Nigel


Maynard, Miss Joan
Steel, Rt Hon David


Meacher, Michael
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Michie, William
Stott, Roger


Mikardo, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Straw, Jack


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Nellist, David
Tinn, James


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Torney, Tom


O'Brien, William
Wainwright, R.


O'Neill, Martin
Wallace, James


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Park, George
Wareing, Robert


Parry, Robert
White, James


Patchett, Terry
Wigley, Dafydd


Pavitt, Laurie
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Pendry, Tom
Wilson, Gordon


Penhaligon, David
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter
Woodall, Alec


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Randall, Stuart
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Raynsford, Nick



Redmond, Martin
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Mr. Don Dixon and


Richardson, Ms Jo
Mr. Derek Fatchett.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Bruinvels, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bryan, Sir Paul


Alexander, Richard
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.


Amess, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Ancram, Michael
Budgen, Nick


Ashby, David
Bulmer, Esmond


Aspinwall, Jack
Burt, Alistair


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Butterfitl, John


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baldry, Tony
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)


Batiste, Spencer
Carttiss, Michael


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Cash, William


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, William
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Blackburn, John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Cockeram, Eric


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Corrie, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Cranborne, Viscount


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Critchley, Julian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crouch, David


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brinton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Dorrell, Stephen


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dover, Den





du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


Dunn, Robert
Moynihan, Hon C.


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Murphy, Christopher


Evennett, David
Neale, Gerrard


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Nelson, Anthony


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Neubert, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Newton, Tony


Fletcher, Alexander
Nicholls, Patrick


Fookes, Miss Janet
Norris, Steven


Forman, Nigel
Onslow, Cranley


Fox, Sir Marcus
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Franks, Cecil
Osborn, Sir John


Fry, Peter
Ottaway, Richard


Gale, Roger
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Pawsey, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Gower, Sir Raymond
Pollock, Alexander


Greenway, Harry
Porter, Barry


Gregory, Conal
Portillo, Michael


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Powell, William (Corby)


Grist, Ian
Powley, John


Ground, Patrick
Price, Sir David


Grylls, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raffan, Keith


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rhodes James, Robert


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Heddle, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Henderson, Barry
Roe, Mrs Marion


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hill, James
Rost, Peter


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Rowe, Andrew


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Hunter, Andrew
Ryder, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Key, Robert
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawler, Geoffrey
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Silvester, Fred


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Sims, Roger


Lee, John (Pendle)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim
Speed, Keith


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Speller, Tony


Lightbown, David
Spencer, Derek


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Squire, Robin


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Nicholas
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Macfarlane, Neil
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Stokes, John


Maclean, David John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Major, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Malins, Humfrey
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Maples, John
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mather, Carol
Thorne, Neil (Ilword S)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mellor, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Merchant, Piers
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Walden, George






Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Wolfson, Mark


Wall, Sir Patrick
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Woodcock, Michael


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Warren, Kenneth
Younger, Rt Hon George


Watts, John



Wells, Bowen (Hertford)
Tellers for the Noes


Wheeler, John
Mr. Tony Durant and


Whitfield, John
Mr. Mr. Gerald Malone


Wiggin, Jerry

Question accordingly negatived.

It being more than two hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the motion relating to the Gas Bill (Allocation of Time), MR. SPEAKER proposed, pursuant to the order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the proceedings on the Lords amendment to a conclusion.

Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to. [Some with Special Entry.]

Rate Support Grants Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

ADJUSTMENTS OF DISTRIBUTION OF BLOCK GRANT

'In relation to block grant for any year beginning on or after 1st July 1987, section 59(6)(cc) of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980 and section 8(3) (C) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 shall cease to have effect'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 30, in schedule 1, page 5, line 47, at end insert—
`14. — (1) Section 8 of the said Act of 1982 shall be amended as follows:
(2) In subsection (4) after the words "in that paragraph" there shall be inserted "and where he does not so provide he shall give reasons for not doing so to the association of local authorities or local authority by whom representations were made".
(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
(3A) Expenditure of any description specified in subsection (3B) below shall be disregarded for the purposes of paragraph (CC) of subsection (6) of the said section 59 and in determining whether the extent to which local authorities have or have not complied (or have or have not taken steps to comply) with the guidance referred to in that paragraph.
(3B) (i) Expenditure grant aided by the Secretary of State under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969;
(ii) Expenditure incurred or grants or loans made under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972.".'.

Mr. Straw: Earlier today, Mr. Speaker, you listened to a point of order from me on the fact that the Bill might be the subject of a certificate as a money Bill. I place on record my thanks to the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government for his courtesy in letting me know about that possibility.
The purpose of new clause 1 is to remove the powers of the Secretary of State to use multipliers for the purpose of abating the grant to authorities whose expenditure exceeds their target figures. This is a useful occasion on which to debate the new clause, as it comes just a day, I understand, before the provisional announcement of the rate support grant settlement for 1987–88. We are informed by a number of newspapers that Ministers are to come to the House bearing gifts of £1 billion or so in anticipation of the general election next year.
I have always thought that we should beware of Conservative Ministers bearing gifts, especially of the size of £1 billion, even if an election is on the way. It is our intention, when we see the detail of the rate support grant settlement, to examine the small print in the greatest of detail. I shall be delighted if there is a U-turn on the issue of rate support grants. However, I suspect that there will be a small catch somewhere. If Ministers recognise the error of their ways, there is no better way to acknowledge that than by accepting new clause 1. If the Minister were


to say straightaway that he accepts new clause 1, I should be happy to terminate the debate without a Division. It seems that I shall have no such luck.
The Local Government Finance Act 1982 gave the Secretary of State the power to issue—in the newspeak of the Government—expenditure guidance—the type of guidance that one receives when one's arm is forced behind one's back and which allows one to go in only one direction— or "targets", as they were commonly known, by which authorities were fined large sums of money if they exceeded the expenditure levels set by the Government. The penalties included a reduction in the grants that would have been payable by the mechanism of multipliers. The system of targets operated for the years 1981–82 to 1985–86. It was abandoned for the current year.
By the time the order was moved on 20 January this year the then Secretary of State for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker), had been elevated from the position of Minister to that of Secretary of State. One can scarcely keep pace with his promotions. He said:
The most important feature of the settlement next year is that we have got rid of targets. That decision has been commended by the Public Accounts Committee in its valuable report published last week. I believe that Members on both sides of the House welcome the abandonment of targets and penalties. I was repeatedly pressed by all authorities, not just the shire counties, to do that." — [Official Report, 20 January 1986; Vol. 90, c. 42.]
That was welcomed by Members on both sides of the House. However, the question that we shall tease out tonight is whether that abandonment applies for only one year or for every year. We shall ask whether Ministers intend to keep the weapon of targetry in their locker so that they can have a go at local authorities as and when they please.
I hope that the Government will accept the new clause. The reason why all hon. Members welcomed the abandonment of targets and penalties was that the system had become desperately unfair and virtually unworkable. It meant that decisions on levels of expenditure were being taken centrally and not by democratically elected councillors. It meant that Ministers had to stand in the shoes of councillors to determine what was a reasonable level of spending. The consequence was wholly to distort authorities' accountability to their ratepayers, because marginal increases in expenditure resulted in a disproportionate increase in rates.
I know this as a ratepayer in Lambeth. During the last local elections we heard all the time about how wonderful Wandsworth was and how terrible Lambeth was, but we were never told that 85 per cent. of expenditure in Wandsworth was paid for by central Government, compared to only 20 per cent. in Lambeth, whereas the disparities in levels of spending were nothing like that. Over a number of years the Inner London education authority, Camden borough council and the Greater London council faced a situation in which they received no grant as a result of targetry, despite the fact that their areas covered some of the most deprived parts of the United Kingdom.
Another objection to targets was that the 1981–82 targets were based on authorities' 1979–80 budgets. The 1979–80 budgets were frozen and simply uprated roughly in line with inflation, which caused enormous distortions for low-spending and high-spending authorities.
The construction of targets changed from year to year. No authority was caught more than Birmingham. In one year, in expectation of the elections which the Conservatives were likely to lose, and indeed lost, Birmingham was brazenly assisted by changes in target and in another year was forced to put up its rates by about 43 per cent.
Above all, the equalisation objectives of the block grant system were frustrated by targets and penalties. The reason why the rate support grant system as a whole has been brought into disrepute by the Government is fundamentally to do with the target system. If targets were not operated, there could have been a consensus on the system of block grant which the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) introduced in 1980.
Amendment No. 30 does two things. It requires the Secretary of State to give his reasons for not granting disregards for the purpose of measuring local authorities' compliance with targets. It requires him to disregard altogether certain items of expenditure when measuring local authority compliance with those targets. Those issues are by no means a matter of history. The amount that individual authorities may earn by way of grant in previous years — certainly including 1983–84 arid onwards—has yet to be decided because we still have not received the supplementary report for 1983–84 and subsequent years.
In most parts of the local government finance legislation under which Ministers make decisions affecting authorities Ministers are required to give reasons. They are not required to give reasons when it comes to disregard. We believe that it is only fair that authorities should know why applications for disregard have been refused. After all, they soon discover if an application for disregard ha .s been accepted. By definition, they should know why it has been refused.
We have provided for disregards of certain items of expenditure and have given two examples: first, where expenditure has been grant-aided under the urban programme, and, secondly, where it has been incurred under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972. By definition, where expenditure has been incurred under the urban programme, the Government have accepted that the project has a substantial priority, otherwise they would not have agreed to fund it. It is ludicrous that the Government agree to fund part of the urban programme, yet expenditure incurred by the authority can be the subject of penalty. Expenditure under section 138 is for expenditure on emergencies and disasters such as the Bradford fire, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will confirm, and the Handsworth riots — both of which were entirely legitimate items for disregard.
9.30 pm
The fundamental issue raised in this debate is the good faith of the Government. On 20 January the then Secretary of State used words which were florid even by his standards, referring not to a decision temporarily to set targets aside but to their "abandonment". If the Government have made such a decision, it is entirely justified that that abandonment should be put into law by new clause 1.

Ms. Harriet Harman: I support new clause I and amendment No. 30. My hon. Friend the Member for


Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has said that the system is unfair and unworkable. I wish to give just one illustration of that unfairness in relation to Southwark council.
Southwark council is threatened with a loss of £6·84 million in rate support grant between 1985–86 and 1986–87. That is 10 per cent. of the Government's contribution, which has also already shrunk by almost half — from £83,300,000 in 1978–79 to £42,532,000 in 1985–86. I hope that the Government will think again and not make that further 10 per cent. cut in an already greatly shrunken contribution.
The proposed cut is inconsistent because the Paymaster General himself has recognised the problems of Southwark by sending in a task force which is supposed to sort out the problems of deprivation. He said that he had picked as task force areas
eight areas which are diverse in character but whose residents all share problems of deprivation and lack of opportunities".—[Official Report, 6 February 1986; Vol. 91, c. 446.]
He said that all the areas suffered from a wide range of long-standing problems.
A Minister from the Department of the Environment has also recognised the problems of deprivation in Southwark. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), wrote to the council saying that he recognised that the deprivation was such that Southwark qualified as one of a handful of areas whose needs compared with those of neighbouring programme status authorities.
The inconsistency of the Government's attitude is heightened by the fact that the then Secretary of State, now Secretary of State for Education and Science, told local authorities as recently as March this year that they should actually spend more. Yet Southwark is now to have 10 per cent. lopped off the Government's rate support grant contribution.
Ironically, the task force was supposed to be an example of co-operation among different Departments working together to meet the needs of one deprived area. Yet Government Departments are not only failing to cooperate but seem actually to be working against one another. One Department is lopping off £6·84 million while another gives back £1 million. That makes no sense at all.
Not only is there no co-operation between Departments, but there is not even consistency within Departments. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State recognises the deprivation in Southwark and, as he says in his letter of 19 August 1985,
the determination of the Council to make good use of whatever resources are made available,
while the Secretary of State seeks to penalise the authority by taking money away from it.
I hope that the Government will realise the effect that the threatened cut would have on jobs and services in Southwark, reconsider the amount to be taken by their curious system which they call multipliers and which really is a system of subtraction, accept the new clause and the amendment, and think again about the proposed cut in rate support grant to Southwark.

Mr. David Clelland: Local authorities are entitled to be given reasons for decisions that affect their budget and services. The changes made to local

government finance by this Government—and they have been fast and furious over the past few years — often mean that local authorities are caught out and are therefore disadvantaged through no fault of their own. That is what happened to the city of Newcastle upon Tyne.
In 1982–83, Newcastle city council decided to amend its accounting practice for the treatment of income from other local education authorities in respect of students attending advanced further education courses in Newcastle. Prior to 1982–83, the income taken into account in respect of any one financial year related to the previous academic year. For example, in the financial year 1981–82, income was taken into account for the academic year September 1980 to August 1981.
This change in practice meant that for 1982–83 onwards the income related to the financial year. For example, in 1985–86, income taken into account was for the summer term of the academic year 1984–85 and the winter and spring terms of the academic year 1985–86. For one year only —1982–83 — the income for five terms was taken into account due to the change in practice. That was for the academic year 1981–82 and two terms in 1982–83. That led to a one-off gain of £2 million which, in accordance with standard accounting practice, was treated in the accounts as a prior year adjustment. In other words, the previous year's figures were changed rather than those in 1982–83.
The budget return for 1982–83 included this income, which has had the effect of reducing total expenditure for block grant purposes and, because the city was subject to negative grant rates, of increasing grant entitlement. It was generally understood that this was the correct treatment of prior year adjustments for block grant purposes. Subsequently, the budget for 1982–83 formed the basis of the city's target for 1983–84, which itself formed the basis of the targets for 1984–85 and 1985–86. As a result, the city's targets were understated in each of these years, and that lost the city several million pounds in block grant.
The city did not complain at the time because it was believed that the budget had been returned on the correct basis and that, when the prior year adjustment was made, that would gain the city grant, partly but by no means completely offsetting the effect of the reduced target.
In February 1985, the Department of the Environment informed local authorities that prior year adjustments were neutral for block grant. That was intended to be helpful to local authorities, but it was probably not envisaged that it would have the kind of effect that it had on Newcastle — that income items such as the city's adjustment would not attract grant. The Department of the Environment invited authorities to amend block grant claims going back to 1982–83 to take advantage of this interpretation. Accordingly, the city amended its grant claims but also requested the Department to accept an amended budget return and to recalculate the city's grant entitlement on the basis of revised targets.
The council wrote in May 1985—three Secretaries of State for the Environment ago — asking for its block grant to be recalculated on the basis of the amended forms. In July 1985 — two Secretaries of State for the Environment ago — it was told that the Secretary of State
would carefully consider their representations for disregards as soon as possible, but anyway before final decisions on


grant abatement for relevant years, and that only initial consideration had been given before making and laying the Rate Support Grant Supplementary Report 1985–86.
The council was also told that
the Secretary of State had always recognised that the reference to 1982–83 budgets carried a risk that anomalous features could be perpetuated but that he thought in most cases authorities should be expected to live with them, though if there were a truly exceptional case, that could be dealt with by way of a disregard under section 8(4) of the 1982 Act.
On 19 December the Department wrote to say that the Secretary of State had considered the representations but decided not to make any provision for such a disregard. No reasons were given. The council thought that it was a harsh, unjustified decision, particularly in view of the injustice of penalties, and it was surprised that there was no explanation. It pointed out that there were precedents for granting such disregards and directed the Secretary of State's attention to the supplementary report of 1982–83 and asked why he had not followed that precedent. The response to that letter was simply to say that it was not the Secretary of State's practice to give his reasons for refusing to grant a disregard.
The council was and is entitled to a full explanation. It wrote to the Members of Parliament for the city, and I wrote on their behalf to the Secretary of State, asking for information on at least two occasions, and then I tabled a parliamentary question. The reply I received was:
The Secretary of State does not consider that he is under any duty to explain his reasons for refusing to grant Newcastle a disregard.
One man has the power to affect extremely damagingly the finances of major cities, with all the consequences that that will have on their citizens. Yet he does not have to explain why he has made his decisions, even to the House. That cannot be right. Amendment No. 30 attempts to rectify and restore the rights of Members of Parliament to get answers to questions, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. William Cash: I wish to speak briefly on a question pertaining to my constituents. Contrary to some of the generally accepted conventional wisdom which we hear from the Opposition, some Labour-controlled county councils, including Staffordshire, have benefited enormously from Government policies on rate support grant. They do not use that money wisely. In April Staffordshire county council received a £9·2 million guarantee, followed by an uplift to about £11 million, and the money for the Stoke-on-Trent garden festival, which is about £30 million. Yet the borough of Stafford has not increased the rates significantly or at all for the past four years, and the whole weight and burden of the county's financial affairs fall heavily on my constituents.
Education takes up 70 per cent. of the entire budget and the district auditor has criticised the county council for the way in which it has arrived at its figures, so one is left feeling extremely worried about education and the appalling way in which the county council's finances are being run. Indeed, it has reached the point when the Bishop of Stafford, the young farmers' clubs and others have had to run a campaign, reminding Staffordshire county council of its 1985 election manifesto, in which it gave a specific commitment to maintain the level of expenditure on voluntary organisations. Since then the council has closed a special school, despite a petition signed by 15,000 people, many of whom came from the lower socio-economic grouping of Stoke-on-Trent, against the closure. Furthermore, the council has been

parsimonious and miserly in dealing with citizens advice bureaux. Staffordshire is about the only county in England and Wales which made no contribution to the CAB. I had to fight to ensure that the money was paid by the county council.
Furthermore, more recently, the schools letting policy has caused great problems for the scouts and other voluntary organisations. Finally, the Marriage Guidance Council came to me recently and said that it had merely received £165 at a time when divorce rates are high and when the opportunities that should be made available through moneys from the county council are not forthcoming. The chairman of the Marriage Guidance Council is extremely worried about whether it could continue. The Opposition parrot on about cuts and cuts. I invite the Minister to look at the amount of money that has gone to Staffordshire and then to consider the amount that has been paid out by my constituents. They pay more money into the coffers of Staffordshire county council than any other party, yet the county council is imposing swingeing cuts on education and proposes to close a huge number of schools. I am fighting that proposal for reasons I have already given — the money has been made available by this Government to Staffordshire county council, yet all that it does is to complain and whinge about the amount of money that it would like to have.
Staffordshire people are enterprising. They run many small businesses and also highly sophisticated and well-run companies such as GEC, Evode, Lotus and others. They are contributing to the wealth of this country and they are providing opportunities for my constituents. It is hypocritical in the extreme for the Opposition to complain about the amount of money that is made available to county councils when the Staffordshire county council in particular receives so much but regrettably spends it so badly.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: My main contribution will be on another amendment. However, I should like to put a question to the Minister on this clause. Nottinghamshire county council went to court in March to get a judgment against the Minister. The case is now to be heard in October. The sum involved is £18 million. Will the Minister confirm that the county council will still be able to go to court if the Bill is passed, or will this retrospective legislation put a stop to that?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) pointed out, the effect of the new clause would be to render inoperative the Secretary of State's current powers to use both targets and hold back to influence local government expenditure in the years beginning on or after 1 April 1987. As he rightly pointed out, for the year 1986–87 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided not to issue expenditure guidance, as we term it, and therefore did not use either the operation of targets or hold back. However, we do not believe that it would be a good idea to take these provisions off the statute book. We profoundly hope that it will be unnecessary to introduce targets in subsequent years, but that depends upon the level at which local authorities spend. Furthermore, at some future stage there may be general economic circumstances or conditions which could require local authorities to be subjected to some form of control.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) for his clear exposition of the great difficulties in which Staffordshire county council has placed his constituents.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask for only one hon. Member at a time.

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans, as far as I know, to reintroduce targets and holdback.
The Opposition have made a number of points in support of amendment No. 30. I refer in particular to the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland). He said that the Secretary of State should be required by law to say why he has turned down requests for disregard under section 8(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not required to give reasons. His general policy is that he does not wish to do so, and he does not.
The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge gave a long list of the difficulties in which Newcastle finds itself, but the House will appreciate that an enormous volume of work would be involved if the Secretary of State were to give reasons in the case of each application for disregard. Each local authority has the right to ask for disregards under section 8(4). In addition, local authority associations can ask for disregards. Over the past three years, about 200 requests for disregards from local authorities and associations have been received. Giving reasons for decisions on all these would have amounted to a great deal of work for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The House will appreciate that many authorities have asked for several separate disregards, and these range from the most general categories of expenditure to specific local issues such as compensation for payments to the local mushroom farm.

Mr. Clelland: How many authorities asked for reasons why they were turned down?

Mrs. Rumbold: If every authority asked for specific reasons, we would have to do an enormous amount of work. Therefore, as a general policy, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is able to exercise under the legislation, he has decided not give reasons.

Mr. Straw: When applications for disregards are made, Ministers always say that they will consider them seriously. That means that in every case where an application for disregard is made officials in the Department will make a submission to Ministers as to whether it should be accepted. The Minister is acknowledging that that is the case. If so, it should not involve considerable work for the Secretary of State to tell local authorities the reasons, in the submission from officials to Ministers, with which Ministers have concurred.

Mrs. Rumbold: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. It is true that all applications for disregards are given extremely careful consideration by my right hon. Friend, but it is equally true that, were reasons specifically given, it would lead almost inevitably to endless requests for further considerations and reasons. Therefore, as the

present legislation allows my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to give general reasons, he wishes to continue with that policy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister's answer will not be acceptable to many people, given that there will at least be some guidelines that apply consistency between one decision and another. If that is the case, would it not be possible to show which of the guidelines render an application for disregard unacceptable?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is clear that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) did not listen to what I said. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to give careful consideration to requests for disregards, but he does not wish to give his reasons for granting or refusing disregards. That is an allowable policy under the legislation.
The second part of the new clause would introduce an automatic disregard for all expenditure grants under the urban programme and all expenditure on emergencies under section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) mentioned Southwark. The House will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has granted a disregard for year-on-year increases in urban programme expenditure by partnership and programme authorities for each of the years from 1981–82 to 1985–86. However, my right hon. Friend has not received any general request to disregard expenditure under section 138 of the 1972 Act, although he has received requests for specific disregards —for example, in the case of the fire at the Bradford football ground. He gives all these requests careful consideration before he reaches his decision. I hope that the House will agree that it would not be desirable to enshrine these two disregards in primary legislation.

Ms. Clare Short: I understand that a request for disregard for the cost of the Handsworth riots was turned down. If so, how does the Minister justify rejecting requests for amendment when the Government have not behaved reasonably over appeals for disregard in the past?

Mrs. Rumbold: If the hon. Lady wants my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reconsider the matter of the Handsworth riots, she is at liberty to ask the authority to make that request, and my right hon. Friend will look at the matter carefully. There is no point at which careful consideration is not given to a request for a disregard.
In response to the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) I should say that the Bill will not prevent Nottingham county council from bringing its case, but it will deny it a remedy.

Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the points made by the Under-Secretary of State. Her closing remarks will go down as a classic in the annals of our parliamentary debates. She said that Nottingham county council could still go to court but that the Bill would deny a remedy.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Nottingham county council might even get a judgment in its favour, but, according to the Minister, it would still be denied a remedy. Who will then pay for that?

Mr. Straw: As my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) has said, a surcharge will no


doubt be levied on the councillors. But we shall come to the retrospective aspects of the Bill when we discuss amendments Nos. 1 and 3. Nothing could sum up better the Government's cynicism than the Under-Secretary of State's remarks. We found her reasons for refusing to accept amendment No. 30 and new clause 1 wholly unsatisfactory. If it is not, to use the Government's weasel words, their present intention to reintroduce targets, they should remove targetry from the statute book. We shall press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:–

The House divided: Ayes 175, Noes 239.

Division No. 271]
[9.57 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Fisher, Mark


Anderson, Donald
Flannery, Martin


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashby, David
Forrester, John


Ashdown, Paddy
Foster, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Foulkes, George


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, W. E.


Barnett, Guy
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Gould, Bryan


Bell, Stuart
Gourlay, Harry


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hancock, Michael


Blair, Anthony
Hardy, Peter


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boyes, Roland
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Home Robertson, John


Buchan, Norman
Hoyle, Douglas


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Janner, Hon Greville


Clarke, Thomas
John, Brynmor


Clay, Robert
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Clelland, David Gordon
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kennedy, Charles


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Kirkwood, Archy


Coleman, Donald
Lambie, David


Conlan, Bernard
Lamond, James


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Leadbitter, Ted


Corbett, Robin
Leighton, Ronald


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Litherland, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Edward


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
McCartney, Hugh


Deakins, Eric
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Dewar, Donald
McKelvey, William


Dixon, Donald
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Dobson, Frank
McTaggart, Robert


Dormand, Jack
Madden, Max


Douglas, Dick
Marek, Dr John


Dubs, Alfred
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Martin, Michael


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Eadie, Alex
Maynard, Miss Joan


Eastham, Ken
Michie, William


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Mikardo, Ian


Ewing, Harry
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Fatchett, Derek
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Nellist, David


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon





O'Brien, William
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


O'Neill, Martin
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Park, George
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Parry, Robert
Skinner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Pavitt, Laurie
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Pendry, Tom
Soley, Clive


Penhaligon, David
Spearing, Nigel


Pike, Peter
Stott, Roger


Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Strang, Gavin


Radice, Giles
Straw, Jack


Randall, Stuart
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Raynsford, Nick
Thome, Stan (Preston)


Redmond, Martin
Tinn, James


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Torney, Tom


Richardson, Ms Jo
Wainwright, R.


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Wallace, James


Robertson, George
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert


Rooker, J. W.
White, James


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Winnick, David


Rowlands, Ted
Woodall, Alec


Sedgemore, Brian
Young, David (Bolton SB)


Sheerman, Barry



Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shields, Mrs Elizabeth
Mr. Ron Davies and


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mr. Allen McKay.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Clegg, Sir Walter


Alexander, Richard
Cockeram, Eric


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Critchley, Julian


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Crouch, David


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Baldry, Tony
Dorrell, Stephen


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Robert


Bendall, Vivian
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Benyon, William
Evennett, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fallon, Michael


Blackburn, John
Farr, Sir John


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fletcher, Alexander


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Franks, Cecil


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fry, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gale, Roger


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Brinton, Tim
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Greenway, Harry


Bruinvels, Peter
Gregory, Conal


Bryan, Sir Paul
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Ground, Patrick


Buck, Sir Antony
Grylls, Michael


Budgen, Nick
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Butterfill, John
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Henderson, Barry


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hirst, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Churchill, W. S.
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
King, Roger (B'ham N'field)






Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Newton, Tony


Lawler, Geoffrey
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawrence, Ivan
Norris, Steven


Lee, John (Pendle)
Onslow, Cranley


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Lester, Jim
Osborn, Sir John


Lightbown, David
Ottaway, Richard


Lilley, Peter
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lord, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Pawsey, James


Lyell, Nicholas
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Pollock, Alexander


Maclean, David John
Porter, Barry


McLoughlin, Patrick
Portillo, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Powell, William (Corby)


Major, John
Powley, John


Malins, Humfrey
Price, Sir David


Malone, Gerald
Proctor, K. Harvey


Maples, John
Raffan, Keith


Marland, Paul
Rathbone, Tim


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Mather, Carol
Renton, Tim


Maude, Hon Francis
Rhodes James, Robert


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Mellor, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Merchant, Piers
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Robinson, P. (Belfast E)


Miscampbell, Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Moate, Roger
Rost, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Rowe, Andrew


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Moore, Rt Hon John
Ryder, Richard


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Moynihan, Hon C.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Murphy, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Neale, Gerrard
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)





Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shersby, Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Silvester, Fred
Viggers, Peter


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Waldegrave, Hon William


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Speller, Tony
Wall, Sir Patrick


Spencer, Derek
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stern, Michael
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wheeler, John


Stokes, John
Whitfield, John


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Winterton, Nicholas


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wolfson, Mark


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Terlezki, Stefan
Woodcock, Michael


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil (llford S)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Mr. Tony Durant and


Trippier, David
Mr. Michael Neubert


Twinn, Dr Ian

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Rate Support Grants Bill, the Insolvency Bill [Lords] and the Company Directors Disqualification Bill [Lords] may he proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Rate Support Grants Bill

Again considered.

Clause 1

VALIDATION OF APPROVED BLOCK GRANT DETERMINATIONS

Mr. Roland Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out Clause 1.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 12, at end insert—
'(2) The multiplier set against Birmingham in the Appendix to Annex G of the Rate Support Grant Report (England) 1986–87 shall he deemed to be 1·164156'.

Mr. Boyes: After lengthy proceedings in Committee, we are now back at first base. Birmingham will not get back the £7·2 million stolen from it unless clause I is deleted, and that is the purpose of amendment No. 1.
In Committee we attempted simply to change the date from 21 August 1986 to 31 December 1985, but that the Government found unacceptable. The reason why we wished to change that date related particularly to the consequences for Birmingham.
How the calculation that affected Birmingham's budget was made was argued at length in Committee and I do not wish to rehearse that now. However, if the Government had accepted our amendment, it would have left their main intention intact but allowed claims by other local authorities for wrongful treatment in the 1986–87 report when multiplers therein contained would not be retrospectively validated. We have no alternative now but to argue and vote for the deletion of clause 1.
Let us examine the nature of multipliers. They are complex, and, as demonstrated by the Birmingham case, can be used in a most vindictive way. During the debate on multipliers in Committee on 1 April 1980, which is a significant date when one considers what has happened since, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)— little did he know that the great city that he has the honour to represent would be so hard hit by a system whose application he described as complicated—said:
More dangerous than that are the circumstances in which I understand they are to be used … One problem is the very flexibility of the multiplier system. Flexibility is the Government's word, but flexibility, while it is beloved by Governments and civil servants, is a matter of which Parliament ought to be particularly wary. One man's flexibility is another man's capriciousness. If something can be used flexibly, it means that the Minister can use it in a variety of ways.
My right hon. Friend also said:
They are crucial to the scheme and potentially damaging to some local authorities. They place in the hands of any Government arbitary powers".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 1980; c. 1044–46.]
What prophetic words those turned out to be.
One of the problems for local authorities and Members of Parliament, and, above all, the public, is that the year-by-year application of multipliers has been different. We debated at length amendments to the Bill in which we argued for greater clarification of the local government finance system, which is getting more and more incomprehensible. Apart from a handful of experts who

understand the system, for the rest of us confusion abounds. The Bill is about to make matters worse because of the Secretary of State's desire for an unnecessary and inordinate amount of discretion.
What was the main purpose of introducing multipliers in the first place? I ask that because they have been used on only two occasions for caps. The main intention was for safety net purposes, to ensure that local authorities did not lose a great deal of grant from one year to the next. "Complex" was the word used by the Minister in 1982 when discussing multipliers. That view was confirmed by the Audit Commission, which found that
it had in practice become so complex that many officers and members of local authorities had abandoned the attempt to understand it fully, while others had concentrated on features that could be exploited to the advantage of a particular authority.
My understanding of the situation is that Birmingham's case is not complicated. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State appeared to allege that Birmingham had made up the figure of £7·million. "Plucked out of the air" became the phrase bandied about in Committee. However, the mode of calculation of the £7·2 million was explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) when he said:
Let me tell the hon. Lady now so that she can understand. The Secretary of State estimated a base grant of £158 million for 1985–86 using contrived assumptions, whereas in the Secretary of State's own projections the grant entitlement for 1985–86 was expected to be £165·2 million. The difference is £7·2 million and that is the amount that we are discussing". —[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 1 July 1986; c. 19.]
10.15 pm
Birmingham is the only council to go to court, but many more councils are affected by the Government's decision. Thirty shire counties, 121 shire districts, eight metropolitan districts and one outer London borough are involved. The sum total involved is about £150 million, but only Birmingham has been to court. I understand that Nottingham wishes to go to court—but that is another matter.
This wretched Bill has been introduced because of the action of one local authority, and it involves £7·2 million which could and should have been found from the Department of the Environment's coffers. The entire £150 million could have been found from recycling grant cash.
The Government have used retrospective action on a number of occasions. The nature of retrospective action in this case causes concern to the Opposition. In the past in their dealings with local government this Government have changed the law relating to local authority mortgages. That was done by section 7 of the Local Government Act 1986. Section 91 of the Local Government Act 1985 makes unlawful payments by the GLC and metropolitan county councils to voluntary organisations and other local authorities after 24 July 1984. Section 8 of the Local Government (Finance) Act 1982 legalises the effective reduction in local authority block grant for those who have not complied with expenditure guidance issued previously by the Secretary of State in the 1981–82 financial year. In addition, the present: Secretary of State for the Environment, while Secretary of State for Transport, legislated to overturn a decision by the courts in a case brought by the GLC involving payments to London Transport.
The clause is designed to override Mr. Justice Mann's decision in the Birmingham case. It will also prevent local


authorities, which are considering the 1986–87 rate support grant order, from doing so. It also validates all previous block grant determinations.
There is sometimes a case for retrospective action by Parliament. I give but three examples—to correct an administrative oversight, to put right an administrative mistake, and to regularise wartime acts. Remedial retrospective action is normally unobjectionable. There is nothing unconstitutional about it, because Wade and Phillips in their book "Constitutional and Administrative Law" said:
It follows from the supremacy of Parliament that Acts may have retrospective operation. But to change the character of past transactions carried out on the faith of the then existing law is repugnant to the conception of the rule of law.
In an article on retrospective legislation and the rule of law in Britain, J. W. Bridge said:
It has been argued in this article that experience in Britain has shown that it is not desirable to prohibit retroactive legislation in all circumstances. Retrospective legislation may be used where justice demands it to protect persons from harm to themselves or their property where that harm results from an unforeseeable or unintended effect of the law or, as in the case of taxation, where different considerations apply. But apart from these exceptional and justifiable circumstances retrospective legislation does offend against the principles of the Rule of Law.
That might not be a relevant example, but the Government's retrospective action tonight certainly offends the people of Birmingham. They are being denied the product of spending £7·2 million which has been taken from them by the Secretary of State. Birmingham is in a region of growth in unemployment and could make good use of the money. We believe it essential to delete clause 1.

Mr. Terry Davis: I shall speak more briefly than I had intended. I wish strongly to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) and amendment No. 3, which would substitute a different figure for the multiplier used for the calculation of the rate support grant for Birmingham for this year.
During our discussion in Committee, it was established that from the time of the first announcement of the principles of this year's rate support grant a year ago, throughout the summer and the autumn environment Ministers discussed the basis of the RSG for this year with reference to last year's actual rate support grant. All local authorities thought that this year's RSGs would be based on the actual grants payable last year. That was the position throughout all the meetings and consultations with representatives of local authorities until the Secretary of State's announcement in December 1985.
What happened between the end of the consultations and that announcement, as became clear in Committee, was that some London authorities had made representations to the Secretary of State, who then changed his mind and based this year's RSGs not on the actual grants payable in 1985–86, but on what were called deemed grants — notional grants, artificial and contrived figures, dreamed up by the Secretary of State. I think that the word "dreamed" could be used instead of "deemed". That announcement came as a bolt from the blue to all local authorities.
For Birmingham, the difference between using the actual grant payable in 1985–86 and the deemed grant was

£7·2 million. There is a tremendous feeling in the city of Birmingham about what has been called the robbery of £7·2 million. After protests to the Secretary of State, the city council decided to go to court. It is now well known that it won its case. A few days previously, the Secretary of State backed down and the Minister came to the House and told us that a Bill was being introduced. When the case came to court, the Government conceded the strength of Birmingham's case, and as a result an order was made in favour of Birmingham and the Department was ordered to pay the city's costs. The Secretary of State's representative in court admitted that the Secretary of State had acted illegally.
This Bill makes legal something that a court of law judged to be illegal. That is objectionable in any circumstances, but especially when it costs an individual or a group of people a large sum of money. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) may shake his head, but it was admitted in Committee—he was not there—that the effect of the Bill would be to make legal something that had been judged illegal and which the barrister representing the Secretary of State conceded was illegal. I am not questioning the good faith of Ministers; I accept what was said in Committee about their having taken a decision in good faith, being advised that they were wrong, conceding that and paying the city of Birmingham's costs. But this Bill takes away the fruits of that action; it means that Birmingham will not get £7·2 million.
We moved several amendments in Committee that would have given Birmingham the money that we regard as rightfully belonging to the city council. Amendment No. 3 would provide a means of giving Birmingham its £7·2 million, but in a different way. We tried to move amendments in Committee to persuade the Government to respect decisions made in a court of law on proceedings that had begun before the Bill was introduced into the House. That was not acceptable to the Government. We introduced other amendments that would have given the money to the city of Birmingham, but they were not acceptable either. I am not sure whether these amendments will be acceptable to the Government, but I suspect not. Amendment No. 3 would substitute for the existing multiplier used in the calculation of RSG for Birmingham —1·196046—a multiplier of 1·164156. The result would be straightforward—to give Birmingham its £7·2 million in RSG.
My hon. Friends and I came to the House this afternoon in a mood that relected the anger of the people of Birmingham, especially the city councillors, and prepared to discuss at length, through the night and the morning if necessary, the effects of the removal of £7·2 million from the city and to describe just what that means for our constituents—

Mr. Jeff Rooker: And in detail.

Mr. Davis: Yes, in detail.
We have, however, received a letter from the Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government telling us that ministerial note will be taken of the representations that we have made both in Committee and privately and that Ministers will give careful consideration to Birmingham's case for additional resources from the Department of the Environment's programmes during the current financial year. Leaking roofs are mended not by


careful consideration, but by money. We do not not deal with the problem of Smith houses in Birmingham by considering it carefully. That problem, too, will be dealt with by money. There are many other examples where money is needed.
In the circumstances, I think that it would be unreasonable to press the Government further tonight. We expect the Minister to come forward with fresh money for Birmingham, and we shall accept that if it happens at short notice. My hon. Friends and I are prepared to accept the assurances that we have been given by the Minister on the basis on and the spirit in which he has given them. We expect, however, that his fine words will be matched by money. We shall not seek to delay unreasonably the passage of the Bill through Parliament tonight, but we expect the hon. Gentleman to respond by coming up with money in clue course.
We are taking the Minister's word and putting ourselves in his hands. I have no question about his good faith, but we are suspicious, especially after what was said last year about the way in which rate support grant would be calculated for this year, when a change in the method of calculation cost Birmingham £7·2 million. There was naturally some suspicion among my Birmingham colleagues. As I have said, we are prepared to accept the assurances that we have received from the Minister this evening and we look forward to seeing fresh resources being made available to enable Birmingham city council to deal with the many problems that we have described briefly tonight and in detail in the past. I hope that it will not necessary to describe them in detail in future.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I am happy to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis). Satisfactory assurances may have been given to him and his hon. Friends, but they have not so far percolated through to the Government side of the Chamber. Nottingham Members — I include the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who is in his place—have not received the same assurances as those which have been given to Opposition Members who represent parts of Birmingham. Consequently, I feel obliged to pursue the issue, and I shall do so as briefly as possible.
Does the Bill, as drafted, have an effect on legal cases which have already been commenced? The hon. Member for Bassetlaw asked the same question in a different way and he will have reached his conclusion on the reply which he was given. I am looking to a reply from my hon. Friend the Minister to the question as I have posed it.
I seek to draw the attention of the House to the position in which Nottinghamshire finds itself as a result of the Bill and I am looking for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister on the effect that it will have on our county. Many Nottinghamshire Members are present, including the hon. Member for Bassetlaw.
Long before the Bill was published, Nottinghamshire county council commenced proceedings against my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The council claimed that the rate support grant settlement for 1986–87 was incorrectly established and calculated. Whether that is correct is not for me to say and not for the House to say. However, if a judge decides that the council is correct, Nottinghamshire ratepayers will be entitled to receive back from the Government about £18 million. I understand that the case is down for hearing before the Divisional court on 17 October. What is not clear from the Bill—nor was it

clear from the Delphic reply of my hon. Friend the Minister to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw—is whether the council, by virtue of the Bill, is to be deprived of having its case determined by the courts. That is the long and the short of it. Has the Bill deprived my county council of its remedy through the courts? In my view, disputes should be settled in the courts—not by a side wind in a Bill dealing with another county council. I shall be glad to hear from my hon. Friend that my fears are ill-founded.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's fears are not ill- founded. His fears are well-founded, because the Parliamentary Under-Secretary made it crystal clear at the end of her speech on new clause 1 that Nottingham could go to court, but it would have no remedy.

Mr. Alexander: That is why I am pursuing the matter. My hon. Friend did not say in so many words that it would be unwise to go to court. She said that it could go to court. I do not claim that her reply was satisfactory. I think that Labour Members would be unwise to press me too far, because basically I am with them on that. I am trying to edge my hon. Friend into a more positive reply.
I appreciate that the Secretary of State must have some finality with a final date fixed for the calculation of the multiplier. Clarity and certainty are virtues in almost all fields. Delay might cause my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to alter the multiplier for other authorities in the same group, if the rules of the game had to be changed.
Nottinghamshire was entitled, as a matter of law, to use the law to challenge the proposed contribution it had to make to the further education pool as a result of the decision in the case involving the Inner London education authority. There is nothing else the county council could have done after that case than to go to law, if it believed that it was wrongly charged to that pool.
A successful appeal will reduce its budget and penalties. It is not fair if, as a result of the Bill, the council will not be allowed to proceed with its case—not because of anything that the county has done or any specific matter dealt with in the Bill, but because of something that occurred in a side wind as part of the Bill. That was not the reason for the Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to say that the Bill will not affect any remedy that a judge may decide the county council has.
I ask my hon. Friend for a specific assurance that my county council will not be deprived of its legal remedies by any side wind in the Bill. The Bill deals with something else. I ask my hon. Friend to assure me that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent my county council proceeding and, if found correct, proceeding to a satisfactory conclusion in the courts.

Mr. Ashton: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander), but I think that he is rather optimistic. Asking the Government to change retrospective legislation is like asking for a reversal of the World Cup decision when Maradona knocked in the ball with his hand. The hon. Lady is on record as saying that, while the court case can be heard, whatever the outcome, there will be no recompense for Nottinghamshire.
In March this year, the county council commenced legal proceedings, because it felt that the case should be determined in the courts. It is now pressing for an


exclusion clause to be inserted in the Bill which would protect the court proceedings. The Minister refuses to insert any sort of amendment or clause, or anything from the Labour party which says that the Minister is not above the court.
Before the legislation was introduced, Nottinghamshire had obtained leave from Mr. Justice Mann for a judicial review of decisions made by the Secretary of State. Clause 1 of the Bill, which has been approved, will retrospectively legitimise all the decisions of the Secretary of State under section 59 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act. As a result, Nottinghamshire county council will be denied an effective hearing in the courts, irrespective of the merits of the case. That is a form of dictatorship. We have often heard Governments allege that trade unions alter and backdate their rules, but the Government are doing exactly the same. It is wrong that the Bill, which, as the hon. Member for Newark said, was designed to alleviate Birmingham city council's problem, should now deny Nottinghamshire county council £18 million.
In February last year, Nottinghamshire county council fixed its budget for 1985–86 at £378 million. That was £8 million over target and the Government imposed a penalty of £18 million. The council knew that the penalty would be reduced if it cut spending. The budget included £16 million toward the cost of advanced further education. In June last year, ILEA successfully challenged in the High Court the basis on which the Secretary of State for Education and Science calculated contributions to the further education pool. By October, it was clear to the county council that its contributions would be reduced by about £1·6 billion only if it acted in the same way as ILEA. It therefore wrote to the Secretary of State saying that it proposed to cut its budget by the same amount, which would reduce the penalty.
In June, the council had revised its system of repaying loans for capital expenditure to spread it more evenly over the life of the loan. That brought Nottinghamshire into line with the majority of councils. It decided to charge to capital the salary costs of engineers working on new roads rather than pay them annually out of the rates. When those revisions were taken into account by the Department of the Environment, penalties would be reduced by £12 million.
During 1985, Nottinghamshire and Bradford sued the Secretary of State and were successful in the Court of Appeal but on 12 December 1985 lost in the House of Lords. I do not want to detain the House at this late stage with too many details, but the fact is that letters were sent and the Department of the Environment knew that Nottinghamshire county council was going to take that action. But still the council was ignored by the Department of the Environment. Because the council believed that the budget changes it proposed were legal and should he accepted, it wrote in October to the Department of the Environment, but the Department — probably deliberately — did not reply until 9 December. That letter, which was received on 11 December, stated two things. First, it said that the Secretary of State would not accept at that stage the advanced further education amendment because it was a windfall gain. The Secretary of State would have known that, if he accepted the amendment, it would increase the council's grant by £5 million. Secondly, to the council's surprise, the letter said

that if there were any other budget changes, the Secretary of State would take them into account, provided they were received in time. An under-secretary confirmed by telephone that any other changes would be acceptable but he gave no indication that it was already too late because the rate support grant report was with the printers and had been signed that very day. The following morning, 12 December, at 10 am the council telexed all the budget revisions and the Department of the Environment acknowledged receipt at 11 am.
Nottinghamshire county council's case was based on the fact that it had altered its budget in time. The Secretary of State refused to accept that, although he is obliged by virtue of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to use the best information available when making supplementary reports. Nottinghamshire's case is that he failed to use the information given to him about its budget and that he was told in time.
This dispute can obviously be settled only by the courts. The House cannot settle it. Legal evidence must be produced as to whether the county council was within the time scale and was doing exactly the same as ILEA—action of which the court had approved. It is common justice that the council's case should still be heard in the courts. The case is down for hearing in the middle of October. But the Under-Secretary of State says that it does not matter a damn what the court decides in October. The court can provide the remedy and say that Nottinghamshire county council was in order in everything that it did, but the Bill rules that out and any saving or amendment to the council's budget does not matter.
This is a constitutional issue. It is not about cash any more. It is about law and order. The party of law and order is quick to amend the law when it looks as though it might cost it some cash or as though it does not fall within the range of what it sees as being in order.
This is a panic Bill, although not too much of a panic because the Government know its effects. They know that the Minister has been acting illegally for about five or six years and has now been found out.

Mr. Robin Corbett: They confessed.

Mr. Ashton: Exactly. The only way of covering their tracks and of saving a great deal of money at the same time is by amending the rules. They have changed the rules and moved the goal posts in the middle of the game. They are a Government of cheats if they do not allow the court to decide whether the Nottinghamshire application was made in the right place, at the right time and in a bona fide manner. Nottingham's ratepayers should not be denied £18 million because of something that has happened in Birmingham under totally different circumstances.
I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that if the courts find that Nottinghamshire county council has a justifiable case and should have received that £18 million, it will be given next year. Better still, the council should be notified of that fact very quickly so that it does not have to go to court.

Mr. Jim Lester: I support both hon. Members who have just spoken, although not the florid language of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and his suggestion that my right hon. Friend was cheating. One principal point overrides all others. The


Nottinghamshire county council went to court, as did the Secretary of State. The court found against the Secretary of State's evidence that it could hear the action. That is the most important point. The Secretary of State gave evidence that this Bill would render the action unnecessary, but the court found that it should hear the case. In those circumstances, it is repugnant that the Bill should take away the remedy of that action.
I know that other hon. Members representing Nottinghamshire do not intend to speak, because of the time available, but I am sure they would agree that retrospective legislation in that form is totally unacceptable. It will create a precedent. If Opposition Members ever tried to do the same thing, Conservatives would be deeply offended. I would be equally offended if my right hon. Friend tried to do same thing.

Mr. Rooker: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), I shall be much briefer than I had intended. The phrase that the Minister used in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is almost on a par with the reply of the Home Secretary during the Second Reading of the Shops Bill. He was asked whether there would be a guillotine, and, almost without thinking, he said that there would not. That had major repercussions.
I do not know whether the hon. Lady read her answer on advice from the civil servants' Box or whether she thought about what she was saying. But her answer clearly applied specifically to the Nottinghamshire case, of which I know nothing, although I have learnt a lot in the last few minutes.
Nottinghamshire county council is bound to get advice from the comptroller saying, "You cannot go to court now because the Minister has already said in Parliament that no judge can give you a remedy. Therefore, the costs of going to court would be a misuse of public funds." Nottinghamshire is therefore placed in an impossible position.
Unlike Birmingham, hon. Members from Nottinghamshire on both sides of the House are prepared to get up off their backsides and speak up for their authority. That has not happened in respect of Birmingham, which has not been an all-party exercise. I also freely admit that I was out of the country during Second Reading, hence my absence from the Division lists on that night. But this affair has not been handled in the spirit in which things have operated in the past. Previously, when our local authority has been badly treated by central Government, we have operated in a more constructive manner than on this occasion. The lessons of Nottinghamshire can be taken on board in Birmingham.

Mr. Roger King: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern to have all-party support in Birmingham for the action on the repayment of the £7·. Conservative Members have given many reasons why it is difficult for the Government to accept that, but it is equally difficult for many Conservative Members, especially those who represent Birmingham constituencies, to go along with the hon. Gentleman's view that the Government have stolen £7·2 million from Birmingham ratepayers when we have just heard that the local authority has taken £31 million more from the ratepayers than it needed.

Mr. Rooker: I welcome that intervention, because it means I can deal with two points which I would not otherwise have raised. The hon. Gentleman did not know that when he refused to support the repayment of the £7 million.
Whether the sum should be £7 million may or may not be justified in the Government's mind. Therefore, I welcome the Minister's letter and take it on trust, as, indeed, we all do. I shall spell out what I expect of the Minister, following that letter. I do not know what representations Conservative Members for Birmingham have made. They do not seem to want any of the £7 million returned because they find it too difficult to organise. I do not know whether they have asked for the money in another form, because there are other ways of assisting Birmingham quite legitimately and separately from other local authorities. There need not be a knock-on effect. We are making a special case for Birmingham, and we shall show, by highlighting certain factors, that there is a special case to be made.
Members of Parliament do not often have the opportunity to set priorities for local authority budgets. It is not our function. Most constituents think that we are in charge of local government budget priorities, but we must frequently disabuse them of that. Given the Minister's letter and given that there is some concession coming, it behoves us to say what our priorities are. The Minister knows that, despite what has happened recently, Birmingham is still by and large a low spending and low rate authority compared with many other large cities. Housing policy is not given sufficient priority in Birmingham compared with other projects. Tonight I have an opportunity on behalf of my constituents to try to influence the priorities on spending in Birmingham. I have no control over that and I do not wish to have any, because it is a matter for my colleagues on the city council. But tonight there is a chance of influencing how the Minister repays some or all of the money to Birmingham. Clearly, he will not accept the amendment.
The Minister should listen to what is said in the House as well as what is said in the City. No one would deny that the first priority of the chief executive of the city council is to get that £9 million urban development grant, but whether it should be used for a five-star hotel is another matter. I would argue that there are other priorities. The Minister has turned the application down. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will undoubtedly make the point with more force than I can because it affects her constituency. A five-star hotel would not be my priority and it should not be the city's priority either.
Even in housing there are arguments about where the money should be spent. My view is that it should be targeted. The Minister's letter refers to programmes during the current financial year. Therefore, we are referring to something that has not been budgeted for. If the Government were to say, "We have decided to provide compensation amounting to £X million to overcome these difficulties, but we cannot do it by means of the multiplier; we will do it in another way, and here is the money," that would not be satisfactory. I want the money to be targeted on housing.
Money should be allocated specifically to compensate for the cuts caused by the lack of home improvement


grants. Money should also be allocated to remedy housing defects. To its credit, Birmingham, as the largest public housing landlord, has taken the lead among English local authorities in surveying defective housing and estimating the costs of repair. It has discovered that the Smith, Parkinson and Boot houses cannot be repaired within the financial limits set by the Government. In some cases the repairs would cost far more than the market value of the houses. Therefore, Birmingham has said that it will repurchase the houses, with a view to future demolition.
The Minister ought to consider providing additional financial assistance for Birmingham under the Housing Defects Act 1984. A sum of £4 million would not be amiss. We are already a quarter of the way through this financial year. We could cope with additional expenditure of that order before 31 March 1987. It would not solve all the problems. The expenditure would be much higher than that. However, it would release other money for repairs and improvements.
To channel the money to housing defects would solve two problems. First, people are living in homes that are an albatross round their necks. They bought their homes in good faith, but they are now unable to sell them. Buyers cannot obtain a mortgage and the houses cannot be repaired within the financial limits. Secondly, money would be released for repairs to the council's housing stock.
Ministers are not unaware of these suggestions. On 19 May the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction received an all-party delegation from the council. However, the delegation contained only Labour Members of Parliament because the Tory Members refused to attend the meeting. The Minister received a presentation of Birmingham's difficulties in operating the Housing Defects Act. We have not yet received the Minister's reply to that presentation. We were told that he would reply first to me and to my hon. Friends.
Birmingham faces special problems over the working of the Housing Defects Act. We know that £7 million more has been taken than should have been taken. In addition, there has been the catastrophic loss of rate support grant during the last few years. A case can be made for special additional funding under the Housing Defects Act in the current financial year. It would meet the commitment that is contained in the Minister's letter.
The Minister has also been pressed to disregard the special expenditure that is incurred by Birmingham's bid to host the 1992 Olympic games. There is no disagreement between the parties in Birmingham over that. Business has been a little slow to appreciate the seriousness of Birmingham's claim. Birmingham has committed an enormous amount of money to this bid. If the bid is successful" it will do a great deal of good not just to Birminhgam but to the nation as a whole.
Additional expenditure has also been incurred because of the Handsworth riots on 9 and 10 September. The operation of the Riot (Damages) Act is a thundering disgrace, and it should not form any part of modern public administration. We need to look at this quickly, although that will not help my constituents, or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) or of my hon. Friend the Member for

Ladywood, whose constituencies are also affected. A special disregard should be made for Birmingham because of its unique problems.
The Minister can find other ways to help. If he cannot find the full £7 million, I am prepared to take half a loaf. I can see from his letter that half a loaf is available. Unfortunately, this has not been done on an all-party basis.
I must respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). It is a matter of some concern to any hon. Member if his constituents have been either over-rated or over-taxed. Birmingham has a revenue expenditure of about £900 million, give or take a few million, and deals with enormous sums of capital flow. The headlines last week were that we were £31 million overcharged on the rates, which is ludicrous, when there was a 43 per cent. rates increase last year. As I understand it, the £31 million was £23 million if one takes account of the £8 million deficit brought forward from 1984–85, which was the deficit that the Tory Councillor Bosworth left when he was thrown out of office.
There was a projected balance of £21 million when the budget was announced. The chamber of commerce was told about this in all the documents — there was no secret about this. There have been some technical changes in the way in which the Government have made their calculations. When one takes into account the balances that were robbed by the Tories so that they could cut the rates — a move for which they lost office — leaving a deficit that we had to make good, and the cuts in the rate support grant of £11 million over 1985–86, that leaves us with about £15 million. We are told that that is not an awful lot for a city that is spending £900 million. I do not see why there should be any balances anyway. The cash flows each week in Birmingham are enormous. The final figure is nowhere near the £31 million first quoted by the hon. Member for Northfield and he can get the information as easily as I and my hon. Friends.
I accept the Minister's word that something will happen. I have given my view as to where the money should be targeted, and why. I am not in favour of the money simply being made available after the budget has been met. because there are factors and projects on which nmoney will be spent of which I do not approve. They do not figure in my priorities and they would not assist my constituents. I am here to represent my constituents, not the organisations of local authorities.

Ms. Clare Short: I, too, will be brief—much briefer than I had intended to be if we had not received this generous letter from the Minister. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful and expect great things as he fulfils his undertaking to find some extra money for Birmingham to make up for taking away £7·2 million — an undertaking given because the Government took legal advice that showed that Birmingham would win in the courts.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), I wish to put on record my priorities for how the money should be spent. The Minister is right, if Saturday's Birmingham Post is correct, in rebuffing the request for a £9 million urban development grant for a luxury hotel to be built right next to one of the most appalling estates in my constituency, where people are living in tower blocks and maisonettes, with water and black mould affecting the health and the lungs of their


children, according to consultants at the Birmingham's children's hospital, which is in the same area. It is a declining and dreadful estate, with no community facilities or proper cleaning. The lifts are used in those revolting ways that we have heard about in high-rise tower blocks that are in decline. I appeal to the Minister to make some money available for refurbishing that estate, and to confirm that the money will not be used to build a luxury hotel across the road.
11 pm
The Minister will be aware that the Paymaster General made great play of a commitment to ensure that urban renewal work and so on would employ local people in the area of the Handsworth riots, which affected Ladywood, and the constituencies of my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr and of my right hon. Friend the Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell). That was an important undertaking, because in the past, as we all know, much of the money spent in Handsworth has not employed local people, yet our rate of youth unemployment is horrendously high. More than 90 per cent. of very young black people are unemployed, and they provide the majority of those seeking work in the area. Despite that undertaking from the Paymaster General there is no money for urban renewal, and so there will only be a few jobs. It is a good policy, but it is too late. The money has been spent, and no new money is flowing through. Consequently, there will not be many jobs for local young people.
Another priority is urban renewal for the remaining parts of my constituency. A number of privately owned houses are in a dreadful state of disrepair. Many people are unemployed and can no longer afford to maintain their houses. Thousands of unemployed young people would give their right arm to obtain a job, to earn some money and to build up their local community. When the Minister decides how the money is to be spent, I hope that it will be spent not on subsidising luxury hotels to be erected by enormously wealthy international companies, but on improving the sad and declining estate in my area, on the urban renewal needs of Birmingham, and on helping young black people in Handsworth to find employment in their community.

Mr. Robin Corbett: In every sense of the phrase, this is a squalid Bill at the end of a wholly squalid affair. The city of Birmingham council went to court because it had a grievance. It was not simply a matter of the council arguing its case before the court, because the Government's representatives confessed in court that the Secretary of State had acted illegally. That guilt was confirmed by the court—it had little choice—and costs were awarded to the city of Birmingham. Having confessed to that illegality, the Government then obtained the support of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) in this form of legalised robbery.
Earlier we debated the fight against crime. It is quite bizarre that the Government's proposals should almost amount to knighting and honouring every burglar, mugger and rapist among those who carry out the 3·6 million crimes a year. If they had the power that the Secretary of State has or the votes that are behind him, they would go to court and get their convictions altered.
In practice, this argument should not be allowed to concentrate on the mind-bending detail of multipliers, rate support grants, GREs and so on. We are arguing about

Whether the city of Birmingham should be allowed to spend the money that it said that it needed to spend prudently and sensibly, on behalf of a modern regional city that is trying to work its way out of a recession. The debate is not only narrowly about Birmingham. As the largest English authority that body went to court. We are talking about the effect, seven years on, of this Government's continuing war against the right of locally elected councils to decide sensibly and prudently on their priorities and spending. That is what it is all about. Whitehall does not know best. Heaven knows how many times that has been said in the House and it is still not listened to, understood or respected.
It is not as if the city of Birmingham is a big spender: I wish that it were. I take no pride in saying, and I know that some of my hon. Friends take no pride in it either, that in 1985–86 the city spent 6 per cent. below the Government spending targets. One of the problems in Birmingham is that it has consistently and persistently, under successive regimes, seen its role as that of a low spender. The penny is now beginning to drop and we hope that it will complete the fall under the Labour council and show that that great city will never solve its problems as long as it takes this too modest approach. I am not talking about being profligate. The Secretary of State visited Birmingham last September, on a visit of Handsworth, and he congratulated the city fathers on the way in which, in the previous two or three years they had spent money.
Like my hon. Friends I do not want any money that will flow from the Secretary of State's letter to go into some unspecified pot. I stress, along with my hon. Friends from the city, the paramount importance of finding more ways of getting money into housing. There is no bigger crisis in our city and the Government need no lectures on that. We do not waste money and I am not knocking the bid for the Olympic Games which Birmingham is carrying on Britain's behalf. All of us who run regular surgeries )n the city know about the way in which the misery has built up in people who live in inadequate housing and who cannot get a transfer or repairs and have no real hope on the waiting list.
I remind Ministers, in case he think we are messing about on this subject, that the last comprehensive return entitled "Repair and Improvement of the Local Authority Housing Stock", RILAHS for short, was sent to the Department of the Environment at the Department's request. That return identified the need to spend in excess of—wait for it:
£715 million on repairing and improving the Council's existing stock.
That is not on one new build because there is not one new family house of flat or purpose-built property for the disabled included in that amount. That £715 million is to repair the wreckage that we have in housing at the moment. The statement was reported to the council meeting on 1 July from the housing committee and said:
an additional 635 new rented dwellings need to be provided by the City and a similar number by housing associations each year for the next five years.
That is a total of 1,270 houses per year. I do not know how the hon. Member for Northfield can vote for this robbery when we have such housing needs, some of them in his own constituency. I do not understand how he can do that.

Mr. Roger King: rose—

Mr. Corbett: I know that his constituents will not understand it either. I gladly give way.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has just given us ample evidence, if any were needed, of how disastrous it is for any city to get into such a situation with its council housing. In many ways it is a condemnation of the principle council housing, because there are plenty of alternative ways in which we could have developed housing within the city. He seems desperately concerned about this £7 million, but what about the £22 million left over from last year or the £15 million? That is over expenditure that was not budgeted for: it is excess profit for the council.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman just does not understand. He continues to troop through the Lobby to vote for a Government who say, on the back of the right-to-buy policy, that local authorities cannot even spend the bulk of the money that they raise from that process on replacing, repairing, modernising or improving housing in the city. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He must live with that for which he voted. He voted for this £7·2 million robbery, just as he voted to put the lid on councils spending the revenue which they obtain from selling their houses. He cannot have it both ways; the voters will see through him.
I must make a narrow constituency point. On the Lyndhurst estate in my constituency, about £1·5 million is being spent on six tower blocks because they are falling down. Exterior work must be carried out on safety grounds. In an ideal world, those tenants would be invited to move out while the work is being carried out, because it is noisy, it is a nuisance and it causes disturbance, dust and dirt. Many of the tenants have lived in those blocks since they were built; they are elderly and have mobility problems. Since the hon. Member for Northfield voted for the robbery by the Government of funds that Birmingham would have otherwise spent on housing, tenants in three of the blocks on which work has started are fenced in by plastic. There is scaffolding all over the blocks, and jack hammers and sledgehammers are banging all over the walls. Even those with the most severe medical problems will be lucky to be moved out while the work is carried on. The hon. Member for Northfield cannot justify stealing £7·2 million that could have been used to give those tenants some sanity and peace while the necessary work was done.
The Minister believes that Birmingham has run out of work. Let me tell him about 1,500 Boswell houses in my constituency. They were built in the 1920s, are shale-filled and have major suspected structural problems. We are not inventing those problems. Four hundred of those homes —I do not complain about this—have been bought by their former council tenants. They have spent much money putting in bay windows, changing the front doors and all the other things that people do when they buy. I do not knock them at all. There is a major problem there. Money must be spent to put that problem right.
If Ministers cannot yet understand why we from the city of Birmingham feel so strongly about this robbery, will they at least think about what happens to real people in real streets in all our constituencies, including Northfield? This is the reality of what spending is about. That is why we object so strongly to this legalised robbery and—I say this to the Minister flatly—that is why we attach supreme importance to the word that he used in the letter that he wrote today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis).

The Minister for Environment, Countryside and Local Government (Mr. William Waldegrave): One problem, but also a pleasure, of being the Minister responsible for local government is that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said, the complicated multipliers and formulae deal with real places and real people. Therefore, it is logically possible to extend such debates, which deal with all the authorities in the country, almost endlessly. I am grateful for the fact that the hon. Members who represent Birmingham and Nottinghamshire put succintly their strong cases on the way in which the legislation, as they see it, affects their local authorities.
11.15 pm
The amendments go to the heart of the Bill. The justification, approval for which we asked on Second Reading and which we received from the House, was that we needed to validate retrospectively the way in which the law had been thought to have worked to give us and local authorities the certainty that the law meant what we had thought.
I well understand that there will be losers among local authorities, just as there will be gainers, unless we as a Government relax the cash limits on local authority spending. It is legitimate for Opposition Members with a different view of economic policy to urge that, but as a Minister it is also legitimate for me to ask my hon. Friends to reject that.
There would have been no way to validate the law as we thought it to be for the losers and to put money in without abandoning our policy. That is why I must ask my hon. Friends, even though some represent authorities which in some respects are losers and would have gained from the immediate change that resulted from the court case brought by Birmingham, to reject the amendment.
The same is true of the Nottinghamshire case. There is no magic about the Nottinghamshire case either. The Department has written to Nottinghamshire saying that we shall, on the same grounds as the Birmingham case, concede their case. It is entirely up to Nottinghamshire whether it continues with the court case. I understand that it is uncomfortable for hon. Members, but we have had to say that the basis of the law must be returned to what we all thought it was.
I well understand that the legal challenges do not come from the fact that Nottinghamshire or Birmingham suddenly have, for general prima facie reasons, a sudden interest in the law. It is because they want to spend more money and have more money from the Government.

Mr. Ashton: The Minister has made a concrete cash offer to Birmingham, or at least has said that he will look at things favourably. Is he now saying that he will do the same for Nottinghamshire and that it will receive some financial benefit if he has the chance to look at the matter?

Mr. Waldegrave: There have been a number of debates. There has been a debate about the principles of validating what we thought the law meant, and I have no shame at all in coming to the House and saying—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wansted and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) put it well on Second Reading — that Governments have a perfect right to secure that the law means what everyone thought it meant and for which they have all worked. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) and others need have no doubt that that is a legitimate thing for Governments to do.
There has been another debate during the course of the Bill, which may be accidental in the sense that Birmingham brought the case, but it has fluently and persuasively focussed on some of the Birmingham problems. Hon. Members who represent Birmingham have justifiably used the Bill to press a number of cases on behalf of Birmingham, which they have also made outside the context of the Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) or the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) was generous enough to make concession over Conservative councillors. Indeed, I have found that in dealings with Councillor Knowles and his predecessor, Councillor Bosworth, that they come from a city, as mine used to be, where the local people put the city first and work together, which must be a strength for Birmingham.
During debates on the Bill several issues have been brought to my attention and some have been mentioned tonight. They show, as is bound to be the case, that there are different priorities, even among Labour groups in Birmingham. The Hyatt hotel does not seem to be popular among those hon. Members who have spoken tonight, although the hon. Member for Perry Barr, who is a sensible man, will, I am sure, say that if private money comes forward he will have no objection to that.
A number of other points have been made. The issue does not depend on the Bill, but on the way in which powerful representations from Birmingham have been hung upon it. Powerful delegations have talked to us. We are looking at the mechanisms available to us which might meet some of the problems. Of course it is open to my hon. Friends who represent Nottinghamshire constituencies to come to see me. However, I shall not be influenced by a case made on the Bill. They must make a case on merit, as other authorities do when they see us.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Did my hon. Friend say in response to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) that the answer was no?

Mr. Waldegrave: I said that I could not possibly say to Nottinghamshire or to Birmingham that because they happened to be losers under the Bill, and because the multipliers mean what we all believe them to mean, they have any right to additional resources. A case has been made which we shall attempt to meet. The sum of £700 million was mentioned. I do not think that we are talking about such a sum, but we shall see whether resources can be found to meet some of the purposes put to us.

Mr. Alexander: In view of what my hon. Friend has just said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) what does he mean when he says that the Government will concede the case? Will Nottinghamshire get the money, or not?

Mr. Waldegrave: The situation is exactly the same as that for Birmingham and for the other authorities which produced late information. There is a strong case for saying that it must be for the Secretary of State to set a date beyond which information cannot be handled. Other authorities also produced late budgets. A telexed budget was handed to the Secretary of State as he entered the Chamber. That is an impossible way to proceed. We have the right to set a cut-off date for information. That is fair.
We are talking about a central part of a Bill which validates procedures which we all agreed were valid in the first instance. The county case, which we have conceded, is put right and validated in the Bill.
I have made points quite clearly to hon. Members representing Birmingham and councillors from both parties who have been to see us. I have to disappoint my hon. Friends who represent Nottinghamshire constituencies by saying that they and other councils will lose under the Bill. They cannot seek money from the Government, but if they want to make a case on merit, we shall be delighted to see them.

Mr. Boyes: I have listened with care to comments by my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). They put the case with passion for the people who live in Birmingham. We talk about councils and large sums, but at the end of the day we care about the citizen.
Even taking into consideration comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) about the Nottinghamshire county council case, I do not intend to press amendment No. 3 to a Division, but after listening to the Minister and his disappointing reply to many important issues, I shall ask my hon. Friends to divide the House on amendment No. 1.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 171, Noes 230.

Division No. 272]
[11.30 pm


AYES


Alton, David
Crowther, Stan


Anderson, Donald
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dalyell, Tarn


Ashdown, Paddy
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Deakins, Eric


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Dixon, Donald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnett, Guy
Dormand, Jack


Barron, Kevin
Douglas, Dick


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Dubs, Alfred


Bell, Stuart
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Eadie, Alex


Bidwell, Sydney
Eastham, Ken


Blair, Anthony
Evans, John (St. Helens N)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Ewing, Harry


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Faulds, Andrew


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Fisher, Mark


Buchan, Norman
Flannery, Martin


Caborn, Richard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Forrester, John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Foulkes, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Fraser, J. (Norwood)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Clarke, Thomas
Garrett, W. E.


Clay, Robert
George, Bruce


Clelland, David Gordon
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Cohen, Harry
Hardy, Peter


Coleman, Donald
Harman, Ms Harriet


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Corbett, Robin
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Home Robertson, John






Hoyle, Douglas
Penhaligon, David


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pike, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Radice, Giles


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Randall, Stuart


Janner, Hon Greville
Raynsford, Nick


John, Brynmor
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Richardson, Ms Jo


Kennedy, Charles
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Kirkwood, Archy
Robertson, George


Lambie, David
Rogers, Allan


Lamond, James
Rooker, J. W.


Leighton, Ronald
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Loyden, Edward
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


McCartney, Hugh
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


McTaggart, Robert
Snape, Peter


McWilliam, John
Soley, Clive


Madden, Max
Spearing, Nigel


Marek, Dr John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Stott, Roger


Martin, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Maynard, Miss Joan
Straw, Jack


Meacher, Michael
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Michie, William
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Mikardo, Ian
Tinn, James


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wallace, James


Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wshawe)
Wareing, Robert


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Welsh, Michael


Nellist, David
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Woodall, Alec


O'Neill, Martin
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Park, George



Parry, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Patchett, Terry
Mr. Allen McKay and


Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Ron Davies.


Pendry, Tom



NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Buck, Sir Antony


Alexander, Richard
Budgen, Nick


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bulmer, Esmond


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam


Ashby, David
Butterfill, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Carlisle, John (Luton N)


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (Wton S)


Baldry, Tony
Carttiss, Michael


Batiste, Spencer
Cash, William


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bellingham, Henry
Chapman, Sydney


Bendall, Vivian
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, William
Churchill, W. S.


Bevan, David Gilroy
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Blackburn, John
Clegg, Sir Walter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cockeram, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Colvin, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Coombs, Simon


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Cope, John


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Corrie, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Couchman, James


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Cranborne, Viscount


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Crouch, David


Bright, Graham
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Brinton, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bruinvels, Peter
Dover, Den





du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ottaway, Richard


Dunn, Robert
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Durant, Tony
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Dykes, Hugh
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Evennett, David
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Eyre, Sir Reginald
Pawsey, James


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Fallon, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Farr, Sir John
Porter, Barry


Fookes, Miss Janet
Portillo, Michael


Forman, Nigel
Powell, William (Corby)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Powley, John


Franks, Cecil
Price, Sir David


Fry, Peter
Proctor, K. Harvey


Gale, Roger
Raffan, Keith


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rathbone, Tim


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Renton, Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Rhodes James, Robert


Gower, Sir Raymond
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gregory, Conal
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Griffiths, Sir Eldon
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Ground, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Grylls, Michael
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hampson, Dr Keith
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Rost, Peter


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Rowe, Andrew


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Barney
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Heddle, John
Ryder, Richard


Henderson, Barry
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hirst, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Shersby, Michael


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Silvester, Fred


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Sims, Roger


Lawrence, Ivan
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Peter
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Derek


Lord, Michael
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Major, John
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Malins, Humfrey
Stokes, John


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Maples, John
Terlezki, Stefan


Marland, Paul
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Mates, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Mather, Carol
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Maude, Hon Francis
Thornton, Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mellor, David
Tracey, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moore, Rt Hon John
Walden, George


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waller, Gary


Murphy, Christopher
Ward, John


Neale, Gerrard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Nelson, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Neubert, Michael
Watson, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Norris, Steven
Wells, Bowen (Hertlord)


Onslow, Cranley
Wheeler, John


Osborn, Sir John
Whitfield, John






Winterton, Mrs Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Winterton, Nicholas
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wolfson, Mark
Wood, Timothy


Tellers for the Noes:



Woodcock, Michael
Mr. Tim Sainsbury and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 2

ADJUSTMENT OF BLOCK GRANT TO LIMIT EFFECTS OF CHANGES 1982 C. 32.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 16, leave out from first 'section' to end of line 17.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendment: No. 9, in page 2, line 7, leave out from 'desirable' to end of line 14 and insert—
'( ) The Secretary of State shall not exercise the power for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2) above so as to decrease the amount of block grant payable to a local authority unless he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent—

(a) the difference in question having an unreasonable effect on the way in which block grant for that year is distributed; and
(b) an unreasonable increase in the amount of block grant payable to that authority for that year compared to the amount payable to them for the previous year;'.

No. 10, in page 2, line 7, leave out from 'desirable' to end of line 14.
No. 11, in page 2, line 18, at end insert
'subject to section 8(3)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982'.
No. 15, in schedule 1, page 4, line 5, leave out
'paragraph (a) shall be omitted'
and insert
'for the words "in paragraph (a) of subsection (6) of that section
there shall be substituted the words
'subsection (2) of section 2 of the Rate Support Grant Act 1986" '.

Mr. Straw: Amendment No. 9, the operative amendment, seeks to change the criteria under which block grants might be capped. Section 8(3)(a) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 deals with caps. The section provides that powers conferred by section 59 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 shall not be exercised for the purpose specified in subsection (6)(a) of the 1980 Act
so as to decrease the amount of block grant payable to a local authority unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that there will he an unreasonable increase, unless he exercises the power, in the amount of block grant payable to that authority for a year compared with the amount payable to them for the previous year".
The Bill seeks to change the test for caps from the effect on individual authorities that have received, on the face of it, a large amount of additional block grant, to the effect on other authorities. Clause 2(3) of the Bill provides that the Secretary of State
shall not exercise the power for that purpose so as to decrease the amount of block grant payable to a local authority for any year unless he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to prevent the difference in question having an unreasonable effect on the way in which block grant for that year is distributed or on the contribution made or to be made by ratepayers in that year to the expenditure of local authorities.

There is a major friction between the test under the present law and the test under the Bill.
The Committee sought an explanation from Ministers as to how the new power would operate. We asked whether it was possible, under the proposed powers, for an authority to have its block grant otherwise payable capped where it could be said that the amount that the authority was to receive was unreasonable, but where it could not be said that the amount was unreasonable for all other authorities, or that it would have an unreasonable effect on all other authorities. I was confused by the answers. When we considered the matter on 10 July, the Minister sought to explain it. However, the hon. Lady left me even more confused. She said:
Last year"—
I assume that that is an error in the record, because she meant 1982—
section 8(3) (a) of the Local Government Act 1985 provided the Secretary of State with powers to cut"—
it should say "cap"—
gain where there was an unreasonable effect on one authority alone, but that power was not used last year, or even interpreted that way, and the action we took in relation to Birmingham concerns the power we now propose in clause 2(2)—the ability to tap"—
it should be "cap"—
The authority's gain because of the unreasonable effect on the settlement to all other local authorities and all ratepayers." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 10 July 1986; c. 120.]
I invite the Under-Secretary of State to explain what she meant. She seemed to suggest that the power under section 8(3) (a) was not used last year in relation 10 the matters about which Birmingham complained. If that section is not in contention, why have we wasted so much of our time in the past few months seeking to amend it? My understanding was that section 8(3) (a) was a pertinent part of Birmingham's objection to the way in which Ministers made decisions.
Is the Under-Secretary of State saying that capping could not be introduced where the only objection to the amount of grant received by an authority was that it could be regarded as an unreasonable imposition on that authority but could not be regarded as such an imposition on every other authority?

Mrs. Rumbold: I shall try to clarify the matter that we discussed in Committee. As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, the amendments deal with a restriction on the power of the Secretary of State to cap grant gains by applying multipliers which reduce the grant. The existing provision requires the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that there would be an unreasonable increase in an authority's grant for one year compared with the previous year if he did not apply a cap. The amendments suffer from the same flaw with respect to the general powers of multipliers as was disclosed in the Birmingham case. This requires the Secretary of State to look at the overall change in grant. The amendments would simply incorporate the same flaw in the new legislation. I include amendment No. 9, which is a sort of hybrid between the existing provision and the one in the Bill.
In the Bill, as drafted, there is a new requirement that the Secretary of State should not apply caps
unless he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to preventan…unreasonable effect on the way in which block grant for that year is distributed".
The use of caps is to prevent large gains by some


authorities, reducing the pool available to all authorities. That is a serious, sensible and proper constraint on the power of the Secretary of State to cap gains. I hope that the House will agree that that is the effect of the new power that the Secretary of State will be given under the Bill as opposed to the old power which will be subsumed by the new legislation.

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, amendment No. 16, in page 4, line 21, leave out paragraphs 8 and 9.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 17, in page 4, line 24, leave out from 'words' oto end of line 25 and insert 'the reasons for making'.
No. 18, in page 4, line 24, leave out from 'words' to end of line 26 and insert
`the material consideration leading the Secretary of State to make any such determination'.
No. 19, in page 4, line 27, leave out from 'words' to end of line 29 and insert
`the material consideration leading to them'.
No. 20, in page 4, line 28, leave out from 'words' to end of line 29 and insert
`the reasons for making them'.
No. 21, in page 4, line 32, leave out from 'words' to second 'the' in line 33 and insert 'the reasons for making'.
No. 22, in page 4, line 32, leave out from 'words' to end of line 34 and insert
'the material considerations leading the Secretary of State to make the determination'.
No. 32, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—
`14.— (1) Section 56 of the said Act of 1980 shall be amended as follows:
(2) After subsection (10) there shall be inserted—
(10A) If representations are made to the Secretary of State by any association of local authorities or by any local authority that the total expenditure of local authorities generally or of any particular local authority' shall be adjusted by the addition or subtraction of expenditure of any description the Secretary of State shall consider those representations before determining whether or not to make a direction and shall give reasons for his decision.".'.

Mr. Straw: Amendment No. 16 proposes that paragraphs 8 and 9 of schedule 1 should be left out. When, earlier today, I made a submission to Mr. Speaker about the possibility that a certificate might be made classifying this Bill as a money Bill, I drew particular attention to paragraphs 8, 9 and 13. I hoped to show Mr. Speaker that this Bill is about much more than the variation of charges out of moneys voted by Parliament.
11.45 pm
Paragraphs 8, 9 and 13 are not subordinate issues but go to the heart of the relationship between central and local government in relation to financial matters. They relate to the explanations that Secretaries of State are to be required to give for the decisions that they have made in relation to various determinations under the rate support grant legislation.
We discussed this aspect of the Bill at some length in Committee. The Minister's anxiety is that the existing words, which require him to spell out the considerations

that lead the Secretary of State to make any such determination, are so wide that he might be tripped up in court when he had inadvertently failed to specify such considerations. I think the Minister accepted that no such attempts had so far been made to go to court under section 60(6)(b) of the 1980 Act. Therefore, this anticipated the possibility of a legal assault rather than dealing with one that had already taken place.
Our objection to paragraphs 8 and 9 is that they remove a clear duty under the 1980 Act and substitute a wholly subjective discretion. Instead of the Secretary of State giving the considerations that led him to make the determination, there is a discretion to provide such explanations as he
thinks desirable of the main features of any such determination".
That could mean anything or nothing.
The Minister said that he and his hon. Friends were reasonable people, and we are told ad nauseum on account of Wednesbury that that goes without saying. He said that as reasonable people they would provide as much information as possible—indeed, that we would not be able to spot the join between the application of the present provisions and the new provisions.
Two points arise. First, if we are unable to spot the join between the old regime and the new one, why make the change at all? Secondly, while this Minister may be very reasonable, he may at some stage be elevated to an even higher position—

Mr. Terry Davis: A peerage.

Mr. Straw: That awaits him in any event, but as the roulette wheel has turned, half the Cabinet has been in office for less than a year. Therefore, it is short odds against, if not odds on, that the Minister may find himself in the Cabinet. However, he will not be there for ever, and who knows how another Secretary of State may interpret these words. Secretaries of State do not have to take account of explanations offered in this House, and they cannot be the subject of court actions. As we well know, only the words on the face of Acts can be tested in the courts, and paragraph 8 waters down an existing and important duty.
When we debated this in Committee, I sought to meet the Minister half way by accepting that the words "the considerations" might have been slightly infelicitously drafted. The Minister feared that everything would have to be put in the pot, including the reason why he had a go at Birmingham, which may have been because he had a bad breakfast. To meet the half genuine point of the Minister, I suggested that "consideration" should be qualified by "material" so that we would deal with the main considerations leading to the determination. The Minister said:
I shall study closely what he has said, but that undertaking carries with it the lowest level of moral commitment to introducing an amendment." — [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 15 July 1986; c. 164.]
We may be denied the possibility of pursuing this, even in the other place, if the Bill is certified as a money Bill, which I hope it is not. I understand, but do not accept, the Minister's argument that the wording is too wide. Certainly, the new wording is too narrow and will give Ministers too substantial a discretion. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment which incorporates


"material" as a qualification. That would meet the Government's concern that they should not have to specify every tiny consideration, but merely the main ones.
The courts are capable of applying common sense in this case. They are not expected to produce tomes the size of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, merely an adequate explanation of the reasons for Ministers' decisions. If local government is to be convinced that there is a systematic approach to the amounts of block grant they receive and that decisions are not based on caprice, it is crucial that it can satisfy itself how decisions are made. The Minister knows well—he is sensitive about this—that relations between central and local government have taken more than one knock over the past five years. He is anxious to restore them, but he will not do so if he seeks to deny local authorities adequate information about how decisions are made.
Amendment No. 32 seeks to amend section 56 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. It states:
If representations are made to the Secretary of State by any association of local authorities or by any local authority that the total expenditure of local authorities generally or of any particular local authority shall be adjusted by the addition or subtraction of expenditure of any description the Secretary of State shall consider those representations before determining whether or not to make a direction and shall give reasons for his decision.
The amendment seeks to require the Secretary of State to consider requests from local authorities to amend the definition of total expenditure for block grant purposes and to give his reasons for granting or not granting such requests. In previous debates we considered the operation of targets and I moved new clause 1 to remove the power to establish targets under the 1982 legislation. Targets have now been abandoned for the time being and we do not lament their passing. But of the facilities that went with targets was the Secretary of State's opportunity to disregard certain items of expenditure when comparing an authority's expenditure with its target. That was an important safety valve of the target mechanism and enabled certain classes of expenditure which everyone accepted were essential not to suffer penalty.
Under the so-called pure block grant arrangements, a similar mechanism is not provided for disregards, but that would be all right provided that the penalty system was abandoned altogether. Although targets were abolished, the penalty system continues, with changes in the slope of the schedules, which means that authorities will still suffer considerable financial penalties if they spend over their grant-related expenditure assessment, plus tolerance. The abolition of the target mechanism and, with it the disregards, mean that a number of expenditures that would have been disregarded for target purposes and that would not have suffered penalty under that system will place some authorities in a more difficult position than would otherwise have been the case.
As examples of the cost to ratepayers of various disregards, in 1985–86 Lambeth paid £1·36 for every £1 of expenditure. In 1986–87, based upon provisional exemplifications of the settlement, with package A GREAs, the extra cost to Lambeth will be £2·17. In 1985–86, for every £1 of additional spending the cost to Birmingham was £1.09. In 1986–87 it will cost Birmingham £2·60. Most reprehensible of all is Lancashire. For every £1 of additional spending last year it was only having to pay 72p. This year it is having to find £1·24.
A paper was published by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, supported by the London Boroughs Association, the Association of Local Authorities and the Greater London Council, in an effort to seek a way out of this problem. It is important that the Minister should make observations upon that paper.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendments. The Minister will remember that in Committee it was strongly argued that the local authority associations would appreciate as much explanation as possible. We sought to find the best definition. The reply of the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold)-I was grateful to her for it—dealt with the precedent for the word "desirable". I accept entirely what she said about that being an appropriate word. The amendments do not preclude desirability as a factor, if that is thought to be appropriate. However, the amendments seek to provide for everybody who is interested in and affected by the rate support grant decisions of the Government the most material considerations—that is, the matters that relate to the basis of the Secretary of State's decision.
Perhaps the Minister will be able to say that what we are asking for is what the Government intend and that they will tell us a little more tomorrow. We are seeking to make clear the main criteria, so that when the annual reports on the rate support grant are published, there can be an assessment, year on year, of the change in the decision-making process and material parts of that. and in particular on the way in which the criteria that the Government have chosen to use are applied either local authority by local authority, or group of local authorities by group of local authorities.
12 midnight
As the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, amendment No. 32 is something that the Minister could meet by way of an undertaking. The Government are being asked to undertake that certain representations made are considered, and that there is a specific duty and process whereby matters raised in the amendment, brought singly by local authorities or by groups of local authorities, about the total expenditure or single expenditure of a local authority, can, when they are added to or subtracted from, be the subject of specific consideration by the Government. These are procedural matters, but they would help confidence building between local authorities and central Government, arid the understanding of the processes of central Government. They would follow in the tradition that the previous Secretary of State said it was the intention of the legislation to carry out, that is, to make the process more simple and comprehensible. I hope that we can achieve some acceptance by the Minister of what is intended by the amendments.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who has joined our debate. Perhaps he has dropped in to see whether the Opposition Front Bench is occupied. On one memorable occasion, he found it unoccupied and moved in, but I would not advise a takeover with the hon. Members for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) as bodyguards to the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
We went into the arguments about consideration in some detail in Committee. As the hon. Member for Blackburn was generous enough to say, if the law meant that every underlying consideration had to be published, that would produce a mountain of useless information, which would not help the local authorities or anybody else. A good way of hiding useful information is by surrounding it with useless information, and that is as good as not providing any information.
In Committee I told the hon. Member for Blackburn that we would look at other formulations that he provided, and we have done so. The hon. Gentleman suggested that "material considerations" should be specified, but I am advised that that would not help because it could be argued that every consideration underlying every GRE component is material. It would have done us no harm to have accepted a formulation that would have met the hon. Gentleman's point, but his suggestion would not work. Therefore, I have to ask him to accept that the declaration that we have made, with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is associated, that it is not our intention to reduce the level of explanation given, should carry the burden of meeting the points that he and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey made.
On the fundamental and new point that the hon. Member for Blackburn made about trying to reintroduce the disregard system into the working of block grant, I have one of those dual-edged arguments. First, it is out of the question to do so, because that would plainly be turning the workings of the block grant into something different. Rather than allowing the resdistributive system of the slope to do its work, it would reintroduce something much more like holdback and targets. On the other hand, we have, by law, to do a large part of what he wants. We have to consider any representation made about total expenditure and what should be included in it. Several representations have been and are being made, but it would take a very strong case to make us use the total expenditure definitions to reintroduce disregards in that way. It would take us back, to some extent, to the duality and complexity of having a target and holdback system.

Mr. Straw: Does the Minister accept that as long as the block grant mechanism is used for penal purposes and for purposes for which it was not intended — it was originally intended as a distribution system—there must be some safety valve to take account of expenditure that authorities have incurred, through no fault of their own, for national reasons or because of an act of God?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not accept that argument. The block grant system, schedule and slope are used in response to a good deal of pressure from my right hon. and hon. Friends in order to try to provide a marginal taxation rate that puts greater pressures on the high spenders than on the low spenders. Within that, we do not accept that it would be sensible to reintroduce the additional complexity of a zero marginal rate for certain categories of expenditure. However, we will have to listen to representations on the definition of total expenditure. In view of that, perhaps the amendment will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Boyes: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 5, line 47, at end insert—

`(14.—(1) Section 57 of the said Act of 1980 shall be amended as follows:
(2) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
`(4) A local authority's grant-related expenditure shall not be less than the level of expenditure (if any) determined or redetermined by the Secretary of State for the authority under section 3 of the Rates Act 1986.'.
The amendment requires the Secretary of State, in determining grant-related expenditure for those authorities subject to rate limitation, to set it at a level that is not less than the expenditure level determined under section 3 of the Rates Act 1984. Section 3 enables the Secretary of State to determine an expenditure level for those authorities subject to rate limitations. The 1984 Act is also the primary legislation under which the new joint authorities are subject to precept control for a period of three years from their establishment.
It is a constant source of discontent that rate-capped and precept-controlled authorities are subject to two separately assessed bench marks of expenditure: GREA, being the formula-derived standard level of service, and the expenditure level, which is a more realistic assessment of what the Secretary of State believes is a reasonably achievable level of expenditure. At the basis of the argument is the principle that the expenditure level represents a recognition by the Secretary of State that that is the level at which authorities need to spend if they are to maintain a reasonable level of service. If that level of expenditure is reasonable, the artificially contrived GREA should be set at least at the same level. I can illustrate some of the problems with reference to newly established metropolitan joint police authorities for 1986–87. I live in Northumbria, and there the GREA is £43.178 million and the expenditure level is £43·431 million. Thus the level of expenditure is higher than the GREA.
But the difference can perhaps best be illustrated by looking at west Yorkshire. There, the GREA is £50·712 million and the expenditure is £63269 million, a difference of almost £13 million.
An authority covered by the Rates Act 1984 may be expressly designated for rate limitation only if it appears to the Secretary of State that its total expenditure in the preceding year was excessive, having regard to general economic conditions. For the new police authorities which are deemed to be designated, there is no presumption that the total expenditure of the predecessor authorities in 1985–86 was excessive. In determining the expenditure level for these new authorities the Home Secretary's principle is that each authority should be broadly able to maintain the level of service for its area provided by the predecessor authority, and he takes into account all the individual circumstances of each authority.
It is clearly inequitable that in those conditions the GREA should be set lower than the expenditure level. There is a precedent for the suggested course of action. The GREA for the Metropolitan police is set equal to the budgeted expenditure and the amendment would ensure similar treatment for rate-capped and precept limited authorities. In other words, if it is good enough for the Met it is good enough for the police authorities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Last year the Government sought to move towards reconciling the difference there had always been between target and GREA. That was always an inconsistency and it gave rise to some illogicalities complained about by hon. Members in all parts of the House. The complaint was that what local authorities


could aspire to reach without penalty was not the basis on which their rate support grant was calculated compared to the needs of other local authorities. The amendment would continue the march towards consistency and would reconcile yet another and the most recently introduced of the Government's assessments — that applied under the Rates Act 1984 for rate capping purposes.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will simplify matters by defining in one way for all purposes the specific amount of local authority expenditure calculated by them as being appropriate. It would seem logical that it should be extended to the calculations for the purposes of rate capping. I can understand that there may he an argument for saying that there is a common calculation, but there is room for an acceptable maximum that goes above that to allow scope within which local authorities can expend without being capped and having their rates determined by the Government.
If not tonight and in the context of this Bill, I hope that the Minister will be able to say that it is the intention to reconcile this definition with the others. The Minister may be able to shorten this debate by asking us to wait 12 hours at which time the Government will accede to the request in an announcement.

Mrs. Rumbold: As the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has said, all local authorities and expecially the new joint authorities can be selected for the first three years but they can only be selected for rate limitation under section 2 of the Rates Act 1984 if their spending exceeds their grant-related expenditure in the year of designation.
I have to tell the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) that the practice has been in the first two years of its operation that authorities are selected only if they are spending at least 20 per cent. above their grant-related expenditure. The amendment would arbitrarily increase the level of an authority's grant-related expenditure and would validate any authority that has chosen to indulge in high spending. it would also give them a higher grant entitlement at the expense of local and precepting authorities which are generally low spending. It would give them an unfair advantage and would let authorities out of rate limitation for the following year because by definition, those authorities would no longer he spending in excess of grant related expenditure. For those reasons I find it impossible to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Wuldegravel]

Mr. Straw: My understanding was that the Minister would say a few words on Third Reading. I am delighted that he wants to speak after me rather than before me.
We have been over the ground of the Bill. It is three and a half months since the Minister came to the House to make his now-famous statement on the block grant multipliers. Never has a statement had such a fascinating title. Of course, the nation has been held enraptured ever since as we have pursued the Bill.
However, the Bill had a bad birth. It was dreamt up by Ministers to get them out of a difficulty caused by the application of their policies during the past seven years. It is a bad Bill, and we have not been convinced otherwise

during our consideration of the measure. If we have the opportunity, we shall ensure that the Bill is pursued in the other place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The criticism of the Bill from the beginning was that it was introduced solely because the courts had said that they would rule against the Government. It was the Government's response to the case brought by the city of Birmingham. It is never a satisfactory beginning for any legislation to be introduced as a way of getting the Government off a hook of their making and to alter the rules that they laid down. The principle of retrospective legislation, as applied by the Government in the Bill, has never been adequately justified. It does not accord with the principles of retrospective legislation that is acceptable and has been used in the past.
The Bill includes a couple of tidying-up mechanisms which are acceptable, but the part of the long title which suggests that the other major purpose of the Bill was, "to clarify and amend the law relating to rate support grants," has not, sadly, produced the clarification and amendment that many of us would have wished.
It is clearly now an issue as to whether the Bill can be debated only by the House of Commons. I hope that those who consider such matters will remember that the Bill contains matters that relate not only to finance. Indeed, the second part of the long title makes it perfectly clear that the clarification and explanation of the law—for example, the explanation of what goes into the determination of rate support grant—goes far beyond that. I hope that the Bill will go to the other place, where it can be debated and, if necessary, amended. With the Bill, the Government have made no substantial progress towards convincing the Opposition, and many of their own Back-Benchers, that they have yet got the rules, let alone the application, of the rate support grant and rating system anywhere near right.

Mr. Allen McKay: We understand that this could be a money Bill. Had we known or suspected that previously, the Committee stage would have been much longer than it was. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when a Committee considers amendments to a Bill, it also looks to the Lords to table other amendments. If the Bill does not go to the other place, some matters will not be debated at all. I wish to put some of them on record.
In this Bill, the Secretary of State has taken to himself great powers. But those powers will be available to any Secretary of State, of any political persuasion, once they are on the statute book. The Bill talks about local authorities
belonging to the appropriate class.
For the first time, we shall be in danger of placing authorities into classes for the distribution of rate support grants. The amount that they receive will depend on their class, not the special difficulties to be found in those local authority areas. The Bill, if passed, will give the Secretary of State powers to direct finance to any authority in any way that he wishes. If the Secretary of State exercises those powers in one direction, he must remember that a Labour Government can exercise them in another.

12.20m

Mr. Waldegrave: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say a few words. We are about to pass a Bill which will clarify the law and make it what it was thought to be in a number of important technical respects in relation to rate support grant settlements. I hope that we have blocked off one or two other technical opportunities for challenge which would have introduced further confusion into the rate support grant settlements, both those that have been made in the past and will be made in the future.
I am grateful for the support given by my hon. Friends in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The Opposition have probed the Bill properly and introduced a number of powerful arguments, in particular relating to Birmingham, if I may mention that dreaded city. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Not dreaded in any real sense—that attractive and important city. We have all learnt a great deal about Birmingham; but, apart from that, I think that the general opinion of the House will be that the Government have thoroughly won the argument on the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Insolvency Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill, and the Bill which the House is to consider next—the Company Directors Disqualification Bill—are the product of a single consolidation exercise and are therefore closely linked. With the permission of the House, I will speak to both Bills now since it is not really possible to explain why the consolidation exercise was necessary without referring to both Bills.
This consolidation presents an unusual feature in that much of the legislation which is to be consolidated is of very recent origin. The principal legislation concerned is a part of the Companies Act 1985 and the bulk of the Insolvency Act 1985. The House will recall that the Companies Act was itself passed as part of a major consolidating exercise. The Insolvency Act made major revisions in the law relating to personal bankruptcy and also made amendments to the companies legislation. Necessary though it was to enact these two major pieces of legislation last year, the result has been to leave the law relating to insolvency split between two statutes. It was recognised that this left the law in an unsatisfactory state and a consolidating exercise was at once set in hand. Fortunately, since the bulk of the Insolvency Act was not to come into force before the end of this year, the opportunity arises to effect the consolidation with the minimum of disruption to practitioners in this area of the law and anybody else affected by it, and before a large body of supplementary subordinate legislation comes to be made.
The Insolvency Bill now before the House contains in one code of legislation the law relating to insolvency as respects both companies and individuals. The Company Directors Disqualification Bill brings together the provisions concerning disqualification from the management of companies.
Both Bills have been passed in another place where they were referred, in the usual way, to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. The Joint Committee reported that the Bills were pure consolidation, though a small number of drafting changes and corrections were made by the Joint Committee and at Committee stage in another place. We are, as always, grateful to the Committee for its painstaking scrutiny. The two Bills constitute a very necessary consolidation in this most important area of the law and they will be of great benefit to practitioners and others. Our gratitude is due to the draftsman for producing the Bills in the short time available and to the Joint Committee for its consideration of the Bills.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: It is unusual for the House to consider legislation that was passed only last year, but there are good reasons for doing so, and I am sure that the legislation will be welcome in its new form, especially to practitioners, as the Solicitor-General said.
I understand that these are the last two Bills that will be considered by the Consolidation Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Brightman. I associate the Opposition with the tribute to his work, which is much appreciated by the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Company Directors Disqualification Bill [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79 (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Job Release Act 1977 (Continuation) Order 1986, which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

MEASURES AGAINST COUNTERFEIT GOODS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 80 (Standing Committees on European Community Documents)
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4092/85 and 4058/86, a proposal for a Regulation laying down measures to discourage the release for free circulation of counterfeit goods, and a proposed Amendment to the draft Regulation; recognises that there is much justified concern at the size and growth of the worldwide problem of counterfeiting; supports the activities of the Community in trying to find ways to contain international trade in counterfeit goods generally; and supports an instrument which would provide more effective measures to prevent counterfeit goods from reaching the internal market of the community.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

Mrs. Irina Ratushinskaya

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by David Somerville of Heaton Park drive, Bradford and 144 of my constituents from the congregations of St. Cuthbert's Roman Catholic church, St. Barnabas church and Westgate Baptist church, which calls attention to the plight of Irina Ratushinskaya, a poet, who is confined in a Soviet labour camp because of her poetry. She is in very poor health and, in the view of her husband and other fellow prisoners, her life is in danger.
The petitioners pray that
your honourable House encourages the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues in their representations to the Soviet Government with the purpose of obtaining both the release of Mrs. Ratushinskaya from the labour camp and her urgently needed assessment and treatment.

To lie upon the Table.

Strategic Defence Initiative

Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to present a petition signed by Kath Parry of Duchy avenue, Bradford and 89 of my constituents — the signatures were collected in one hour — which emphasises
That the costs of SDI research would divert public money which might be spent to alleviate the financial cuts now being inflicted on health, welfare and educational services or on the modernisation of our manufacturing industries.
The petitioners pray that
your honourable House to make public the secret agreements governing both United States bases and Star Wars research in Britain; to take steps to remove the American nuclear bases and to end Star Wars research; to take positive initiatives to end Britain's role in the nuclear arms race and to promote the peaceful solution of international problems.

To lie upon the Table.

Mr. L. Hedges (Pension)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Mr. Tony Baldry: Hon. Members are not infrequently approached by constituents who seek assistance in resolving a matter that they feel to be unjust or unfair. Frequently help can be sought from a Government Department, they can be advised of possible legal remedies, or, on some occasions, assistance can even be sought from the parliamentary ombudsman.
From time to time one is approached by a constituent who has a case that is not so simple, where advice from all the relevant Government Departments has been given, where, on the face of it, there would appear to be nothing for which there could be legal address, but where, none the less, if all the facts were known, the man on the proverbial Clapham omnibus or the man in the Bicester high street would say, "Hey, that is not right; it is not fair. Something ought to be done about it."
In such circumstances it is right to draw the attention of the House to the matter, first, in the hope that a reexamination of the facts might act as a catalyst for a reexamination of, and, perhaps, a happy solution to the case, and, secondly, so that others can take note of the lessons to be learnt from the case. I am grateful that this debate enables me to raise one such case, that of the pension from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority of Mr. Leslie Hedges, a constituent of mine. I am grateful to the Minister for the time and attention that he has already given to this case.
Mr. Hedges retired in 1980 after 40 years of employment in the public service, throughout which time he paid a full contribution towards his pension. From 1937 to 1948 he worked for the Oxfordshire county council; from 1948 to 1961 he worked for the National Health Service; and from 1961 he transferred his employment to the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell.
Shortly after Mr. Hedges transferred to Harwell, the superannuation officer of the AEA wrote to him confirming that in respect of his earlier employment he had been credited 20 years and 88 days in the UKAEA nonindustrial superannuation scheme. Thus, in 1961 Mr. Hedges commenced his employment with the UKAEA with no fewer than 20 years of fully paid-up pension contributions already made. It is perhaps worth noting in passing that Mr. Hedges retained the letter sent to him in September 1962 by the UKAEA about his pension, which would seem to suggest a cautious, prudent man, rather than a man who might gamble with his future, as some came to suggest later.
If Mr. Hedges had stayed with the UKAEA until the age of 65, he would have received a full pension based on 40 years' service and his final salary. Furthermore, he would have received a tax-free lump sum of three times his annual pension. However, in 1970, after 10 years' service at UKAEA, and by now 30 years' service in the public sector, and at the age of 55 years, Mr. Hedges resigned his post as clerical officer at Harwell and took up employment at the University of Oxford. At this point matters go awry in respect of Mr. Hedges' pension.
The sensible thing would have been for Mr. Hedges to be able to transfer his 30 years' pensionable service from

the UKAEA's non-industrial superannuation scheme to the pension scheme of the University of Oxford. The UKAEA pension scheme had a clear provision for the transfer of previous pension rights. Indeed, in 1961 Mr. Hedges had been able to transfer his accumulated pension rights from his local government and National Health Service employment to the UKAEA scheme. That, however, appeared not to be possible with the University of Oxford scheme.
Some years later, when, for reasons which I shall explain later, it became apparent that the value of Mr. Hedges' eventual pension was being substantially eroded, he made further inquiries of the university to ascertain whether it would take on his accumulated pension to date. The university was prepared to accept only the transfer of a cash sum from Mr. Hedges' previous employers. The cash sum that the UKAEA was prepared to make available to the university in respect of Mr. Hedges' pensionable service was only about £8,000. It should be remembered that that was for 30 years' fully reckonable pensionable service. Mr. Hedges had been paying about 6 per cent. of his salary while at UKAEA towards his pension.
Given this sum, the university was not prepared to credit Mr. Hedges with 30 years' pensionable service, nor 20 years, nor half, 15, but only 11 years and one month. When pensionable service is being transferred, the only consideration for the university is the cash value of the pensionable service offering the transfer payment. Put shortly, Mr. Hedges' new employer noted the value of what his former employers were prepared to transfer in respect of his pension contributions and, despite the fact that they represented 30 years' service, was able to offer only 11 years' credit within the rules of its own scheme. It was understandable that at 55 years Mr. Hedges did not accept that.
I make no criticism of the university for its superannuation scheme. It was simply applying the rules of the scheme to the situation with which it was presented. I am not in a position to comment on the fairness or otherwise of the transfer value of about £8,000 that was offered by UKAEA. But it must be a matter of general concern when someone who has spent the larger part of his working life in the public sector finds in transferring his pension that it is worth considerably less than he had anticipated.
What happened to Mr. Hedges' pension? Apparently, until 1972 staff who resigned from UKAEA had an option under the rules of its non-industrial superannuation scheme to arrange at the time of their resignation for their superannuation rights to be reserved by the purchase of a deferred annuity instead of having their pension benefits frozen in the UKAEA scheme until normal retirement age. Put briefly, Mr. Hedges was given a choice: he could leave his pension benefits frozen in the United Kingdom AEA scheme until the time he retired, at which point he would receive a percentage of the pension relevant to his years of service, or he could, in effect, use his pension contributions up to the time of his resignation to purchase a deferred annuity.
Sadly, Mr. Hedges was given no advice as to the respective merits of such options nor as to their potential dangers. It so happened that the benefits offered by the insurance company in 1970 for a deferred annuity provided potentially a much higher fixed income on paper than the United Kingdom AEA alternative. But what no


one mentioned and made clear to Mr. Hedges, when he considered which option to take, was that the apparent advantage of the deferred annuity was always vulnerable to inflation, and the danger that, in time, it would become less favourable.
I do not suggest that there was any negligent misstatement on behalf of the AEA. As far as I can ascertain, there was no advice at all. No one endeavoured to explain to Mr. Hedges that he was, as the deputy general secretary of the CPSA — Mr. Hedges' trade union — observed, taking a gamble that the annuity option would hold its value. No one told Mr. Hedges, or even hinted, that he was engaged in a gamble. As Mr. Hedges says, he is not a gambling man, and he certainly would not have gambled with his pension. He was simply given two options and he took the option which, at the time, seemed to be to his advantage and the most attractive.
It was not long before the ravages of continuing high inflation seriously eroded the value of Mr. Hedges' pension. With inflation now around 3 per cent., it is all too easy to forget those years of the 1970s with inflation, on occasions, over 25 per cent. Inflation destroyed the value of people's savings and pensions.
It did not take Harwell long to realise that the option could be disastrous for its former employees. In fact, in 1972, just two years after Mr. Hedges transferred to the University of Oxford, it removed the option. But for Mr. Hedges it was too late.
When Mr. Hedges realised what was happening he asked the United Kingdom AEA to change his choice. However, the AEA made it clear that deferred annuity arrangements were specifically in lieu of the benefits that would otherwise have been provided under the authority's scheme. The UKAEA maintained that its liability was discharged absolutely when the capital sum was paid to the insurance company in respect of Mr. Hedges' deferred annuity, and that it was not responsible for augmenting funds provided by the insurance company.
Even with inflation running at only 3 per cent., Mr. Hedges is becoming steadily worse off every month and year that passes. His pension, in respect of his 30 years' employment in the public sector, until he left the UKAEA is a derisory sum. It is just £868 per annum.
Should not the AEA have appreciated that it was offering a choice, one option of which, in times of rising inflation, could have a dramatic and devastating effect on M r. Hedges' final pension?
How many others are there in the same position as Mr. Hedges? How many others resigning from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority prior to retirement age took that option? Why did the AEA not give Mr. Hedges some impartial advice as to the merits of the options available to him? After all, as Mr. Hedges has said to me, he could not believe that the UKAEA was acting other than in his best interests. He trusted the authority as an employer in the public sector. If the UKAEA realised in 1972 that this was an unsound option, should it not have appreciated that fact by 1970?
In 1980, the chairman of the UKAEA, Mr. Hill, said that he had
sympathy with the problems caused by inflation for those who took deferred annuities rather than the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority's superannuation scheme pension
and that UKAEA had
looked most anxiously and carefully into the possibility of doing something to improve their pension position,

but apparently the authority concluded that no remedy was available. However, I have no doubt that the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus or the man in Bicester High street, if aware of the facts of the case, would say that it is unfair that someone who has given a lifetime of work in various ways to the community should find himself in this position.
Mr. Hedges simply and understandably wants a pension that reflects his many years of public service. I believe that this case merits re-examination. There may be similar cases. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State simply to undertake that his Department will look into Mr. Hedges, case to ascertain whether, even at this late stage, there is some discretion to enable him to receive a reasonable pension in respect of his years of service and substantial contribution, and not one the value of which is eroded day by day and month and month.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Alastair Goodlad): My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has raised with meticulous care an important issue on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Hedges. I have listened with close attention to what he has said, but, for reasons which I shall explain, I fear that there is nothing that the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority or the Department of Energy can do to improve the position of Mr. Hedges or of other pensioners in respect of the matters raised by my hon. Friend.
As my hon. Friend has told the House, Mr. Hedges joined the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority on 8 August 1961 as a clerical officer, having previously worked for a local authority and for the National Fleali:h Service. By means of the payment of a "transfer value" from the NHS pension scheme, he was able to make his previous local authority and NHS service superannuable in the authority's principal non-industrial superannuation scheme. The credit in the authority's scheme for previous service was 20 years and 88 days.
Mr. Hedges resigned from the authority on 14 August 1970 to take an administrative post with Oxford university. He had at that stage 29 years and 95 days in the authority's scheme, including the 20 years and 88 days of back service. At that time, Oxford university's pension scheme could not accept in transfers of pension rights earned with other employers. Mr. Hedges had the choice of two methods of preserving his accrued pension rights under the rules of the authority's pension scheme. First, he could have had his pension benefits "frozen" in the scheme until his contractual retirement age with the authority—65. Alternatively, he was able to purchase a "deferred annuity" — a policy with an insurance company which provided a lump sum and a fixed annual pension from age 65. It was the authority's principle and practice to leave individuals to choose the method of preservation they judged to be in their best interest.
The deferred annuity option had the primary purpose of providing a form of preserved pension provision for early leavers with less than 10 years' service who would otherwise, under the then rules of the scheme, have been entitled only to a refund of their own contribution, plus a small amount of interest, but less a deduction for tax. To improve the available benefits members were given an entitlement, if they wished, to transfer their pension benefits into an annuity policy to make some provision for retirement.
In addition, the deferred annuity option also gave those scheme leavers who had 10 or more years' service, and who therefore had a right to benefits to be preserved under the scheme, a degree of choice in how their benefits should be preserved. This extension was made at a time when the authority was having to run down staff numbers rapidly, and it was desirable to be able to offer maximum flexibility in pension provision for those who left to take up other employment. Contrary to the impression that I think was given by my hon. Friend, the authority transferred a proportion recommended by the actuary of its own, as well as Mr. Hedges' contributions.
As he requested in advance of resigning, Mr. Hedges was given details of, first, the value of his benefits if frozen in the authority's scheme and, secondly, the proceeds of a deferred annuity based on the then current rates. The amounts in round pounds were as follows. First, if he chose to stay "frozen" in the authority scheme, he would receive a lump sum of £710 and a pension of £398, though with a possibility that these amounts would be augmented by pensions increases.
Secondly, if he chose a deferred annuity, Mr. Hedges could have either a fixed lump sum of £1,883 or £2,153 with the benefit of estimated bonus — plus a fixed pension of £672 or £769 with estimated bonus — or alternatively a fixed pension of £896 or £1,024·19 with estimated bonus but no lump sum.
It was made clear that the estimated bonus was simply an estimate and in no way guaranteed. Assuming no pensions increases in the occupational scheme, the figures presented to Mr. Hedges indicated a relative attraction for the deferred annuity option, though of course, on the assumption that scheme pensions would be increased, this altered the relative attractiveness of the options. It was authority policy not to press employees to select one route rather than another, as the authority was in no position to predict future events.
On 13 July 1970, Mr. Hedges applied for a deferred annuity—making in effect the assumption that pensions increases would not catch up with the annuity—and on 17 August accepted the version of the deferred annuity "cash lump sum" plan.
I should explain here the authority's relationship with the insurance company involved. For all employees who wanted the deferred annuity option at that time, the authority entered into a master policy with the Guardian Assurance Company Ltd. It was this company's estimated rates that were quoted to the individuals concerned. The authority fully discharged to the Guardian all liability for pension provision for those individuals on whose behalf the authority paid over to the Guardian a capital sum to secure a deferred annuity policy. The authority had no powers of discretion concerning the proceeds of the policies.
When Mr. Hedges reached the age of 65 in 1980, proceeds of the annuity policy provided benefits of a lump sum of £2,479 and a fixed annuity of £868. Had he elected instead for the "maximum annuity" variant, he would have received an annuity of £1,157, but no lump sum. If Mr. Hedges' benefits had been preserved in the authority's own scheme, they would have been worth in 1980 with the benefit of pensions increases a £2,300 lump sum and £1,288 pension, and his pension now would be £2,141 a year. The particularly high levels of inflation experienced

in the 1970s were difficult to foresee when Mr. Hedges resigned from the authority in 1970. The period of high inflation which eroded the value of fixed benefits has in retrospect shown that deferred annuities were a relatively poor choice to have made. But the judgment is made with the benefit of hindsight.
It would also have been impossible to foresee the introduction by the Government in 1971 of index-linked pensions. At the time Mr. Hodges made his decision in 1970, authority pensions were reviewed from time to time along with other public service pensions which were increased by individual Pensions Increase Acts. These increases were not regular and were not kept up with inflation, although they mitigated its effects. Subsequently, the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 introduced updating every other year, and the Superannuation Act 1972 made updating mandatory on an annual basis. Such annual index-linking protects pensions from the eroding effects of inflation by increasing their value in line with rises in the retail price index.
In 1972, in view of the potential effect of inflation on the real value of deferred annuities, the authority decided to remove the annuity option from its pension scheme. I understand that that was done by administrative action, since the staff trade union side would not agree to the change. Until the annuity option was removed, some 786 employees had taken it.
I should like now to explain the attempts that have been made by the authority to alleviate the position of deferred annuitants, such as Mr. Hedges, both in general and in his particular case. A number of avenues have been pursued.
First, there have been discussions with the Department of Energy and its predecessors as to whether a way could be found of supplementing and index-linking deferred annuities ex gratia, on a par with public service schemes. But it was judged by the Department and the Civil Service Department that this would not be a proper use of public funds, given that those concerned had exercised a free choice in the knowledge that they were forfeiting all benefits under the authority scheme.
Secondly, on behalf of annuitants, the authority has asked the Guardian Assurance company whether it could increase the level of annuities in the light of interest rates and high inflation. However, the company has insisted that when it issued the policies the premiums were invested in a form so as to ensure that policy benefits were met, irrespective of future financial conditions. That meant that it had to invest the premiums in safe investments. It therefore said that it was not in a position to grant an increase in benefits provided by this means. The following is the relevant extract from its letter of 26 March 1982:
.… when an Insurance Company issues a policy, the premium is invested in a form which will ensure that policy benefits are met irrespective of future financial conditions. In the specific case of annuity contracts, investment would normally be in gilt-edged securities. This ensures that a regular series of cash payments is provided. Should interest rates rise, the value of the investment will fall but the income from the investment is unaffected. To invest money on short-term deposit would leave the Company vulnerable to a fall in market rates of interest, the expected income from the investment would be insufficient to meet the required payments. The annuitants would be unprepared to accept a reduction in benefits if interest rates had fallen. The investment policy, therefore, avoids loss due to a fall in interest rates but (unfortunately) precludes profit on an increase. The Guardian is not therefore in a position to grant an increase in respect of benefits already purchased.


Thirdly, from 1 April 1978 the Oxford university scheme was able to accept in transfers of accrued pension rights earned with other organisations. The authority accordingly asked Guardian Assurance if the annuity could be cancelled and a transfer value offered. The insurance company agreed to that and the transfer value offered by the insurance company was £8,250. I stress that that sum was determined by the insurance company and not the authority. That sum would have produced only 11 years of pension credit in the Oxford university scheme as calculated by that scheme's actuary, compared with some 29 years which were originally converted into the annuity. Mr. Hedges declined the offer and retained his annuity which came into payment in 1980 when he was 65. A substantial proportion of deferred annuitants have likewise declined offers to unscramble their pension position through transfer values to an occupational pension scheme.
Fourthly, the authority considered the option of providing payments from authority funds, but concluded that it was not able to do that since, as already explained, it surrendered all liability for such individuals' pension position to the Guardian Assurance Company. Any payments would, therefore, be ex-gratia and had already been deemed to be an improper use of public funds.
Fifthly, the authority considered whether assistance could be made available from the authority's benevolent fund. The benevolent fund is an independent registered charity which has as its purpose under its constitution the relief of poverty among the authority's past and present non-industrial staff. It is managed by its own committee of management and is to all intents and purposes independent of the authority, which cannot give it directions on the use of its funds. I understand that Mr. Hedges did not meet the criteria necessary to benefit from the benevolent fund.
I am advised that in 1981 the authority board itself looked most carefully into the question whether any further steps could be taken to improve the pension position of its deferred annuitants. For the reasons I mentioned above it was forced to conclude that there were no further steps that could be taken.
I gather that Mr. Hedges wrote a letter of protest to my hon. Friend's predecessor in 1980 when his annuity came into payment. The then authority chairman, Sir John Hill, replied to the hon. Member expressing his concern and regret about the deferred annuitants' position but explaining that their decision on the means of preservation had been freely taken and that they were left in no doubt at the time that their decision on the means of preservation was in lieu of any continuing benefit from the authority's pension scheme. Sir John Hill pointed out that
the apparent advantage of the deferred annuity [had always been] vulnerable to inflation and to the danger that it would become less favourable at some point in time.
There appear to be no avenues left unexhausted by the authority to enable it to do anything towards alleviating the position of Mr. Hedges and his fellow annuitants. Other public sector bodies, including the CEGB, have been forced to a similar conclusion about their own position. I think that the House will agree that the authority has gone to very considerable lengths to try to alleviate the problem and that Mr. Hedges was not misled about his pension position.
Mr. Hedges' experience, and that of others like him, demonstrates clearly the damaging effects of high inflation on people's lives. It is a further reason, if such were necessary, why the Government's determination to ensure that inflation is kept under control is very important indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute past One o'clock.